"A 


BX  4844  .L3  1920 

Lagrange,  Marie-Joseph,  185 

-1938. 
The  meaning  of  Christianity 

3LCC o r d i na   t o   Luther   and   hi 


THE  MEANING 

OF  CHRISTIANITY 


ACCORDING    TO    LUTHER 


AND  BIS   FOLLOWERS  IN   GERMANY 


The   Very    Rev.    M.    J.   LAGRANGE,    O.  P. 

Editor  of  the  Revue  Biblique 
Director  of  the  Ecole  Pratique  cVEtudes  Bibliques,  Jerusalem 

TRANSLATED  BY 

The  Rev.  W.  S.^REILLY,  S.  S. 


LONGxMANS,    GREEN    AND    GO. 

FOURTH    AVENUE    &    30th   STREET,    NEW    YORK 
39    PATERNOSTER    ROW,    LONDON 

BOMBAY,  CALCUTTA  AND  MADRAS 

19^ 


CONTENTS 


Preface    7 

i.  The  Exegesis  OF  THE  Catholic  Chubch         23 
II.  The  Fat.sf  mysticism  of  Luther.   .    ,         54 

III.  The  accusation  of  imposture  by  the 

Deists 93 

1 .  Dogmatism  of  early  Lutheranism;  the 

era  of  Pietism;  the  rise  of  Deism  in 
England  and  France 93 

2 ,  Lessing  and  Reimarus  propose  to  Ger- 

many   the    Deistic    explanation   of 

Christianity 105 

3-  The  moral  beauty  of  Jesus  makes  it 
impossible  to  believe  that  He  and 
His  friends  were  impostors 117 

IV.  The  Views  of  Enlightened  Rational- 

ism           125 

1 .  Jesus  the  most  enlightened  represen- 

tative of  enlightened  reason.  .    .    .       128 

2 .  The  activities  of  the  Essenes  explain 

the  mysterious  element  in  the  Life 

of  Jesus.    Bahrdt  and  Venturini.   .       134 

3.  Paulus    systematically    reduces    the 

miracles  to  the  proportions  of  natu- 
ral events 139 

4.  Compromise  theology.     Rationalism 

adopts   the   language   of   orthodox 
Protestantism;    Hase,    Schleierma- 

chcr 149 

V.  Strauss's  Mythological  Interpreta- 
tion OF  THE  Gospel 157 


I 


b  CONTENTS 

1.  Life  of  Strauss 157 

2.  Strauss's  first  Life  of  Jesus 168 

VL  The  Tubingen  School  on  the  Origin 

OF  Christianity 195 

1.  Baur's    reconstruction    of    Christian 

Origins 197 

2 .  Baur's  System  tested  by  his  disciples.  204 

3.  The  Apostolic  witness  consistent.   .  211 

4.  Greek  Philosophy  and  St.  Paul.   .    .  222 
VII.  The  Compromise  of  the  Liberals.    .    .  230 

1 .  Orthodox    reaction    against    Strauss 

and  the  radicalism  of  Bruno  Bauer.  230 

2.  A  German   Via  Media 237 

3.  Liberal  Criticism  of  the  Gospels   .    .  244 

4.  The  Jesus  of  Liberal  Theology.   .    .  257 
VIII.  The  discovery  by  Johannes  Weiss  of 

ESCHATOLOGICAL     MeSSIANISM.      .     .     .  267 

1 .  The    Eschatological    System  as  pre- 

sented by  A.  Schweitzer 271 

2.  Criticism  of  the  Eschatological  Sys- 

tem concerning  the  Reign  of  God.  .  279 

3.  The  Eschatologists'  Messias   ....  297 
IX.  Judeo-Pagan    Syncretism 308 

1 .  Christianity  an  amalgamation  of  Ju- 

daism and  Paganism 308 

2.  The  Doctrine  of  the  Spirit 314 

3.  Pagan  Initiations  and  Christian  Bap- 

tism.   320 

4.  The  Eucharist 336 

X.  Conclusj">ns.  . 347 

1  .   The  Savior  God  and  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth   348 

2 .  Present  Position  of  German  Exe^etes.  357 

3 .  Causes  of  the  Failure  of  German  Exe- 

n-esis 365 

4.  Continuity  of  the  Church's  Tea-ihing.  372 

Index  of  Authors 379 


PREFACE 


These  lectures  review  the  successive  attempts 
made  by  -  German  exegetes  to  replace  the  Catho- 
lic explanation  of  the  origin  and  nature  of  Chris- 
tianity. They  were  delivered  in  the  Catholic 
Institute  of  Paris,  at  the  end  of  1917  and  the 
beginning  of  1918.  I  had  to  write  them  far  away 
from  our  dear  Httle  Jerusalem  library;  and  I  was 
not  sufficiently  acquainted  with  the  great  libraries 
of  Paris  to  be  able  to  use  them  with  the  best 
advantage.  Besides,  I  have  found  that  these  li- 
braries —  even  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale  —  do 
not  furnish  complete  information  concerning  the 
exegetical  literature  of  Germany.  This  will  partly 
explain  the  use  I  have  made  of  the  work  of 
Mr.  Albert  Schweitzer,  on  the  "  History  of  Re- 
search Relative  to  the  Life  of  Jesus.  "  ^  In  places, 
I  hardly  more  than  give  an  account  of  what  he 
has  said.  I  acknowledge  this  indebtedness  all  the 
more  readily  that  Mr.  Schweitzer  is  evidently  a 
man  of  very  vigorous  mind  and  very  straightfor- 

1.  Geschichte  der  Leben-Jesu- ^orschung,  by  Albert 
Schweitzer,  Tubingen,  1913.  It  is  the  second  edition  of 
the  work  first  entitled,  Von  Reimarus  zu  Wrede.  The  En- 
glish translation,  by  W.  Montgomery,  is  entitled,  The  Quest 
of  the  Historical  Jesus  (2nd  ed.  London,  1911). 


8  PREFACE 

ward  character,  who  does  not  hesitate  to  admit 
the  lamentable  failure  of  that  scientific  movement 
of  which  Germany  is  so  proud;  his  personal  solu- 
tion we  shall  appreciate  in  due  time. 

I  had  come  to  my  eighth  lecture  before  I  heard 
of  Father  Pillion's  book  on  "  The  Stages  of  Ra- 
tionahsm  in  its  Attacks  against  the  Gospel  and 
the  Life  of  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  "  ^  It  was 
not  without  confusion  that  I  immediately  con 
fessed  to  my  audience  this  bibliographical  lacuna. 
Father  Fillion  is  very  erudite,  his  plan  is  much 
like  the  one  I  had  chosen,  partly  in  accordance 
with  Schweitzer;  and  I  would  not  have  taken  up 
the  subject  had  I  known  that  the  pubhc  was  so 
well  informed  concerning  it.  Having  begun  the 
series  of  lectures  I  had  to  finish  it;  but  the 
usefulness  of  a  book  on  a  topic  so  well  handled 
by  the  learned  Sulpician  might  be  questioned. 
On  reflection,  it  appeared  to  me  that  there  were 
sufficient  differences  between  my  work  and  that 
of  Father  FiUion  to  justify  a  second  book.  Fa- 
ther Fillion  is  more  complete;  his  inquiry  takes  in 
France  and  England.  While  this  is  a  great  ad- 
vantage, it  may  not  be  without  interest  to  isolate 
typical  cases  in  an  exegesis  which  has  incontesta- 
bly  served  as  a  model  for  the  others.  Then,  the 
judgment  passed  upon  German  exegesis,  taken  as 
a  whole,  is  not  the  same.  The  title  chosen  by 
Father  Filhon,  The  Stages  of  Rationalism,  indi- 
cates that  he  •  is  more  particularly  impressed  by 


1.     Les  etapes  du  rationalisme  dans  ses  attaques  contre  les 
ivangiles  et  la  vie  de  Notre-Seigneur  Jesus-Christ,  Paris,  1911. 


PREFACE 


•     9 


the  destructive  character  of  independent  exegesis, 
which  he  regards  as  an  engine  of  war  against  Rev- 
elation. There  is  much  truth  in  this  view;  but 
in  Germany,  the  theologians  who  have  practiced 
the  difficult  art  of  criticism  have  often  had  in 
mind  to  construct  a  reUgious  edifice  —  for  the 
use  of  Germans,  of  course.  Finally,  Father  Fil- 
lion  rehes,  with  good  reason,  on  the  repulsive 
effects  upon  healthy  minds  of  the  Ucence  of 
thought  in  which  these  theologians  have  indulged; 
I,  on  my  part,  have  sought  to  enforce  this  im- 
pression by  positive  arguments  against  the  sys- 
tems which  I  have  expounded,  particularly  in  the 
case  of  those  modern  systems  which  still  exert 
an  influence. 

Written  in  haste,  and  in  circumstances  brought 
about  by  the  war,  these  pages  have  not  taken  on 
any  accent  of  rancor.  It  is  true  that  from  the 
awful  catastrophe  a  light  has  been  struck,  a  hght 
which  rekindles  a  hope.  The  light  is  that  which 
comes  from  a  better  reaUzation  of  the  truth  of  the 
inspired  words  :  Vse  soli!  Woe  to  one  who  isolates 
himself!  The  hope  is  that  we  may  have  once 
more  a  society  of  nations,  —  a  society  which,  to 
become  complete,  must  seek  rehgious  unity  through 
the  Church. 

The  great  crime  of  Lutheran  Germany  is  to 
have  destroyed  this  unity.  Again,  I  speak  without 
bitterness.  Germanism  has  a  reason  to  exist  as 
an  element  of  universal  culture,  and  German 
religious  sentiment,  under  the  Church's  influence, 
has  yielded  marvelous  fruits  ot  holiness  and  virtue. 
Rome,   which  inherited  the   ancient   civihzation, 


10  •  PREFACE 

and  became  the  teacher  of  Christian  doctrine, 
educated  the  barbarians;  and  Germany  brought 
new  forces  to  Rome.  In  the  great  body  of  Chris- 
tendom, she  represented  a  distinct  civiHzation, 
but  one  which  was  not  isolated ;  she  did  not  reject 
the  softening  influences  of  classical  taste,  and 
submitted  her  violent  instincts  to  the  curb  of 
ecclesiastical  discipline.  Too  often,  it  is  true,  she 
sought  to  dominate  by  force  the  government  of 
the  Church;  but  at  any  rate  she  did  consent  to  be 
a  member  of  the  society,  more  ideal,  alas  I  than 
real,  of  Christian  nations.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  German  principle  of  loyalty  to  certain 
ruhng  families  has  been  an  element  of  stabihty; 
the  atrocious  Itahan  tyrannies  of  the  Middle  Ages 
and  of  the  Renaissance  allow  us  to  imagine  what 
would  have  become  of  Romanized  Europe  without 
this  principle  of  ord^  r,  to  which  the  Church  gave 
divine  sanction. 

But  where  the  Roman  and  Christian  principle 
of  discipline  had  not  prevailed,  men  bore  with 
impatience  the  authority  of  the  Roman  See. 
Revolt  broke  out.  For  a  long  time,  Germany 
seemed  as  careful  to  maintain  her  place  in  the 
concert  of  European  nations  as  she  was  to  show 
independence  of  Rome.  She  received  much  from 
the  radiation  of  France;  and  she  apphed  herself 
to  contribute  her  share  to  the  development  of  the 
sciences.  At  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
she  made  up  her  mind  to  keep  more  to  herself  and 
te  break  with  French  culture;  but  she  sheltered 
her  own  renaissance  under  the  genius  of  Shakes- 
peare, and  Goethe  urged  her  to  draw  from  Greek 


PREFACE  11 

sources  a  sense  of  proportion  and  of  form,  to  borrow 
from  the  French  Theatre  its  nobiHty  and  its 
beauty.  Schiller  himself,  who  had  begun  with 
Die  Raiiber,  and  who  understood  the  French 
character  so  poorly,  endeavored  by  his  translation 
of  Racine's  Phedre  to  bring  his  fellow-countrymen 
back  to  sane  traditions  of  art. 

However,  Germany's  tendency  to  free  herself 
from  all  outside  influences,  or  rather  to  domineer 
over  all,  finally  prevailed.  National  pride  was 
unleashed,  and  it  indulged  the  insensate  dream 
of  a  culture  which  should  be  all  the  more  perfect 
for  being  intensely  autonomous,  the  unhindered 
product  of  an  elect  race,  exclusive  of  all  foreign 
contributions.  It  is  when  Germany  thought  the 
development  of  this  native  civihzation  perfect, 
that  she  made  her  attempt  to  obtain  control  of 
the  world  by  the  power  of  her  arms,  pretexting 
the  design  of  bringing  it  happiness.  After  having 
broken  with  the  Church,  she  broke  with  mankind. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  exegesis  was  a 
factor  in  the  projected  conquest.  And  Germany's 
exegesis  had  as  a  matter  of  fact  obtained  in  the 
world  a  credit  which  was  scarcely  less  notable 
than  that  of  her  most  efficient  industries. 

One  need  not  be  hostile  to  the  Germans,  as  men 
and  Christians,  to  hope  that  this  chimera  will 
meet  with  the  fate  of  Babel.  They  have  not 
gained  by  their  isolation;  all  this  vast  design,  more 
or  less  conscious,  ended  only  in  a  regression  towards 
antecedent  barbarism.  We  form  for  them,  most 
cordially,  the  wish  that  they  may  once  more  take 
their  place,  whatever  it  may  be,  in  that  common 


12  PREFACE 

work  of  mankind  in    which  all    must  help   one 
another. 

In  the  spiritual  sphere,  with  which  alone  we  are 
here  concerned,  national  rehgions  have  been 
incapable  of  satisfying  the  human  soul;  this  is 
particularly  true  since  the  day  Christianity  called 
all  men  to  the  worship  of  the  same  Father,  under 
the  influence  of  the  same  Savior.  The  effort  to 
create  a  distinctively  German  religion,  which 
should  be  imposed  upon  the  rest  of  the  world  by 
the  ascendency  of  the  German  peoples  and  of  their 
culture,  was,  consequently,  doomed  to  failure. 
It  was  bound  to  be  shattered  upon  that  Rock 
whereon  Jesus  Christ  built  His  Church.  We  shall 
try  to  say  how. 

But  we  would  also  tell  the  story  of  the  immense 
effort  made  by  the  exegetes  of  Germany,  and  show 
how  it  may  be  of  profit  to  Truth,  if  we  know  how 
to  employ  it  in  the  ssirvice  of  a  method  which  is 
more  reliable,  because  it  is  divine. 

We  shall  see  that  the  Catholic  Church  has 
reason  to  thank  God.  She  has  faithfully  retained 
the  old  dogmatic  interpretation  of  texts,  and  it 
will  be  recognized  ever  more  clearly  that  this 
interpretation  is  above  reproach  in  the  eyes  of 
reason. 

This  success  of  the  Church  is  due  above  all  to 
the  assistance  which  Christ  promised  His  Apostles. 
And  under  divine  protection,  it  may  be  attributed 
to  the  faithfulness  of  Catholics  to  tradition;  a 
traditional  interpretation  handed  down  in  such 
a  society  as  the  Church  is  more  apt  to  be  right,  in 
matters  in  which  the  society  is  vitally  concerned, 


PREFACE 


13 


than  are  the  results  obtained  by  individual  minds 
however  powerful  their  efforts  may  be.  Can  we 
add  that  the  work  of  Cathohc  critics  has  contributed 
to  the  triumph  of  the  Church's  dogmatic  interpre- 
tation? To  a  certain  extent  it  has  so  contributed, 
no  doubt;  but,  unless  I  am  mistaken,  only  sHghtly. 

The  work  of  CathoUc  scriptural  scholars  in 
defense  of  the  Church's  interpretation  has  not 
equalled,  either  in  intensity  or  in  the  copiousness 
of  its  products,  that  of  independent  critics;  and 
what  Cathohcs  have  done  by  positive  achievement 
to  forestall  attacks  is  still  less  creditable.  It 
would  be  an  unprofitable  task  to  demonstrate 
the  truth  of  this  assertion. 

And  what  does  it  matter  whether  or  not  Cathohcs 
apply  themselves  to  the  defense  of  Catholic  exe- 
gesis? some  persons  may  inquire.  Since  non- 
Cathohc  critics  devour  one  another  we  may  leave 
it  to  them  to  defend  us.  The  Church  guarantees 
us  the  possession  of  the  truth;  that  is  enough. 

It  is  enough  for  the  greater  number,  and  all 
must,  finally,  lean  on  the  Church's  authority  for 
dogmatic  interpretation.  But  we  have  only  to 
look  around  us  to  see  that  great  harm  is  being 
done  to  souls  by  the  most  venturesome  and  the 
least  warranted  assertions  of  independent  exegetes. 
I  do  not  speak  of  Protestant  countries  alone;  no 
one  is  ignorant  of  what  is  going  on  within  the 
Cathohc  Church  herself.  And  let  us  "bear  in  mind 
that  the  ravages  of  false  exegesis  are  wrought  in  the 
most  cultured  minds,  more  particularly  in  those 
minds  whose  very  vocation  binds  them  to  scriptural 
studies,  and  whose  fall  is  more  deplorable  and  more 


14  PREFACE 

resounding.  Twice,  within  the  memory  of  many  of 
us,  the  earth  seemed  to  shake.  I  refer  to  the  period 
which  followed  the  pubhcation  of  Kenan's  '*  Life  of 
Jesus  "  and  that  which,  more  recently,  followed 
M.  Loisy's  publication  of  "  The  Gospel  and  the 
Church.  "  In  these  hours  of  crises  pamphlets  were 
multiplied  by  the  hundred,  containing  more  or  less 
apposite  refutations,  all  written  in  haste ;  and  they 
were  offered  to  a  public  which  was  ill  prepared  for 
such  an  assault.  We  know  what  the  work  of  the 
eleventh  hour  is  worth  in  warfare.  It  may  ward 
off  supreme  catastrophes,  but  it  can  never  com- 
pletely supply  for  long  and  patient  preparations. 
Let  us  not  wait  until  danger  is  upon  us. 

The  work  to  be  done  by  Catholic  scholars  is  sug- 
gested by  the  experience  of  their  enemies.  The  anti- 
dogmatic  exegesis  of  the  Germans  profited  by  their 
philological  and  historical  studies.  It  is  repeatedly 
asserted  that  those  who  are  competent  in  the 
knowledge  of  etymology  and  of  syntax  more 
readily  understand  the  sense  of  a  text;  that  those 
who  have  accumulated  all  the  means  of  knowing 
antiquity,  are  the  men  who  are  best  fitted  to 
appreciate  the  religious  movement  of  Judaism 
and  Christianity.  Who  can  deny  the  plausibihty 
of  this  assertion?  We  must  have  scholars  of 
equal  competenc  ,  able  to  discern  between  what 
is  based  on  the  scientific  knowledge  of  language 
and  of  history  and  what  is  derived  from  the 
philosophical  theories  of  the  exegete ;  able  to  detect 
the  subjective  element  which  glides  in  between 
the  technical  explanation  of  words  and  sentences 
and  the  appreciation  of  their  meaning,  between 


PREFACE  15 

exegesis  in  the  strict  sense  and  the  exegetical 
system  taken  as  a  whole,  with  its  presuppositions 
and  assumptions.  These  CathoHc  exegetes  must 
be  sufficiently  trained  in  textual  criticism  to  call 
attention  to  arbitrary  alterations  or  rejections  of 
texts;  they  must  be  sufficiently  versed  in  the 
comparative  study  of  religions  to  judge  the  various 
manifestations  of  the  religious  spirit  and  to  de- 
nounce the  prejudice  which  would  place  on  an 
equal  footing  manifestations  which  are  very 
unequal.  To  fit  oneself  for  the  work  which  the 
present  condition  of  bibhcal  science  imposes  upon 
the  Catholic  scholar,  there  is  manifestly  much 
work  to  be  done;  and  those  who  have  at  heart  to 
accomplish  the  task  which  confronts  them,  must 
not  neglect  the  lessons  of  organization  of  which 
the  Germans  have  given  us  the  example.  Work 
and  organization  are  the  secret  of  their  efficiency. 
The  Germans  have  done  much  work.  This  is 
not  due  to  a  special  endowment  of  the  race.  In 
centuries  past  they  were  not  regarded  as  particu- 
larly alive  concerning  intellectual  matters.  But 
ah-eady  at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  their 
philological  and  historical  studies  began  to  rival 
ours.  Lack  of  political  unity  favored  the  prosper- 
ity of  numerous  universities,  in  which  theology  — 
of  some  kind  or  other  —  ever  occupied  an  honorable 
place,  and  ever  exerted  an  active  influence.  Now 
it  so  happened  that  the  development  of  studies, 
particularly  the  unexpected  development  of  the 
study  of  the  languages  and  the  civihzations  of 
the  ancient  Orient,  made  it  strictly  necessary  for 
biblical  scholars  to  use  that  comparative  method 

2 


16  PREFACE 

which  can  only  be  pursued  in  a  university^  by 
speciahsts  who  can  agree.  The  Germans  knew 
how  to  unite  in  order  to  procure  indispensable 
tools,  to  produce  collective  works,  —  acting  in 
that  mass  formation  with  which  they  are  famihar. 
Under  present  conditions  the  collaboration  of 
many  scholars  is  necessary  for  the  success  of  an 
encyclopedia,  a  dictionary,  a  collection  of  inscrip- 
tions. The  Thesaurus  of  the  Latin  language  is 
not  produced  by  one  academy;  it  represents  the 
collective  efforts  of  several  learned  bodies.  The 
dictionary  of  mythology  of  Roscher,  the  encyclope- 
dia of  Pauly-Wissowa,  the  great  collections  of 
*  Greek  inscriptions  and  of  Latin  inscriptions,  still 
more  perhaps  the  Teubner  editions  of  the  classics, 
illustrate  the  advantages  of  division  of  labor. 
Moreover,  not  only  do  we  see  in  these  great  instru- 
ruments  of  work  results  which  could  never  have 
been  achieved  by  individual  workers,  but  we  see 
in  them  means  of  co-ordinating  obscure  efforts 
to  which  scholars  would  not  submit  were  they 
not  sustained  by  a  certain  corporative  instinct. 
Germans  know  how  to  resign  themselves  to  the 
toil  of  collecting  little  facts,  of  analyzing  patiently 
phenomena  of  grammar,  of  taking  note  of  the 
texts  relating  to  a  given  subject;  and  it  is  in  this 
way,  rather  than  by  their  theories,  that  they 
have  made  us  their  tributaries.  Their  musical 
sense  made  them  understand  the  power  of  the 
orchestra,  and  there  is  no  orchestra  where  everyone 
insists  on  playing  a  violin  solo. 

I  do  not  maintain  that  we  have  to  imitate  them 
in  a  servile  manner,  to  do  as  well  as  they.     We 


PREFACE  17 

have  but  to  come  back  to  our  old  traditions.  Are 
not  the  great  Benedictine  collections  an  ever- 
present  monument  to  the  spirit  of  abnegation  in 
scientific  study?  In  our  ov^n  days,  the  Dictionnaire 
des  Antiquites  is  as  creditable  to  the  application 
of  its  collaborators  as  to  the  judiciousness  of  its 
principal  director,  the  regretted  Mr,  Saglio.  But 
it  took  a  long  time ;  and  in  this  case  the  time  element 
is  important,  for  the  divergencies  between  the 
first  articles  and  the  last  become  very  perceptible. 
We  have  undertaken  the  Corpus  of  Semitic  In- 
scriptions, so  useful  to  biblical  studies,  and  the 
collection  of  the  historians  of  the  crusades;  but  I 
remember  hearing  Mr.  Perrot,  the  perpetual 
secretary  of  the  Academy  of  Inscriptions  and 
Belles  Lettres,  exhort  his  confreres  not  to  neglect 
the  collective  enterprises  upon  which  the  learned 
body  was  engaged.  Scholars  upon  whom  rests 
the  scientific  renovm  of  France  should  be  allowed 
to  consecrate  themselves  entirely  to  personal 
w^orks;  but  they  should  have  auxiharies. 

Besides  co-ordinating  the  work  of  many  of  her 
scholars,  Germany  has  been  particularly  successful 
in  securing  continuity.  Nothing  is  more  favorable 
to  the  advancement  of  learning  than  handing 
down  the  same  works,  in  editions  kept  strictly  up 
to  date.  Our  predecessors  were  already  obliged 
to  them  for  the  Hebrew  Grammar  and  the  Hebrew 
Dictionary  of  Gesenius ;  its  superiority  was  recogn- 
ized. Hebrew  studies  have  made  great  progress; 
but  young  and  old  still  use  the  same  works, 
Kautzsch,  who  had  revised  them,  has  already 
disappeared.     Others  will  replace  him.     A  similar 


18  PREFACE 

revision  is  given  to  the  old  Greek  Dictionary  of 
Passow,  completed  by  Mr.  Croenert.  Who  would 
have  thought  Germans  so  faithful  to  tradition? 
The  reason  is,  that  this  continuity  favors  the 
success  of  w^orks.  One  prefers  to  do  business  vv^ith 
an  old  firm,  honorably  known,  provided  it  keeps 
up  with  modern  improvements. 

This  spirit  of  organization,  productive  of  col- 
lective works  and  of  perpetuated  works,  requires 
a  sense  of  hierarchy  and  respect  for  recognized 
superiority.  And  this  abnegation  has  its  imme- 
diate reward.  The  perpetuated  work  moves  in  a 
path  that  is  already  traced  out,  sohcits  attention 
without  disturbing  habits.  The  collective  work 
is  one  that  is  directed.  The  eccentricities  and  the 
aberrations  of  the  individual  judgment,  notoriety- 
seeking  extravagances,  the  itching  ambition  to 
mark  an  era,  are  rarer  in  them  than  in  those 
isolated  works  in  which  a  Wrede  or  a  J&nsen  is 
able  to  give  himself  a  free  rein.  These  massive 
efforts  are  powerful,  because  all  conspires  to  make 
the  same  doctrine  prevail.  This  power,  of  course, 
adds  to  the  danger  they  create  if  their  doctrine 
is  false.  Happily,  in  exegesis  as  in  war,  Germany 
excels  in  preparation  more  than  in  execution;  her 
grammars  and  dictionaries  are  more  solid  than  the 
constructions  which  she  keeps  putting  up  in  all 
styles,  ever  unwearied  and  never  satisfied. 

What  I  have  said  of  the  scientific  work  of 
Germany  must  make  it  clear  that  no  patriotic 
sentiment  can  dispense  scholars  of  other  countries 
from  reading  German  books.  Even  when  one  is 
on  his  guard  against  their  conclusions,  he  cannot 


'  PREFACE  19 

but  learn  something  from  fellow-workers  who  are 
patient  and  persevering,  with  a  curiosity  which 
is  ever  on  the  alert,  with  a  useful  mania  for  refer- 
ences  and    bibhographical   indications. 

I  now  beg  permission  to  make  a  few  observa- 
tions which  refer  to  our  Jerusalem  school  of 
Biblical  studies. 

We  have  had  the  very  high  ambition,  in  this 
Palestinian  school,  to  give  to  the  pubhc  a  complete 
series  of  bibUcal  works,  bearing  at  the  same  time 
the  stamp  of  faith  and  of  good  faith,  works  which 
would  be  both  Cathohc  and  French.  We  have 
'published  our  program.  ^  It  is  not  for  us  to  pass 
judgment  on  the  value  of  what  we  have  accom- 
plished. 

Some   have   charged  us  with  having  too  much 


1.  Revue  Bihlique  1900,  "  Project  of  a  complete  com- 
mentary of  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  "  Father  Lagrange 
here  urges  the  need  of  a  Catholic  commentary,  based  on  a 
good  translation  of  the  original  text,  following  the  findings 
of  careful  textual  criticism,  and  giving  particular  attention 
to  literary  criticism;  and  he  appeals  for  collaborators.  He 
has  himself  published  (Librairie  Victor  Lecoffre,  Paris)  Le 
Livre  des  Juges,  1903;  Evangile  selon  Saint  Marc,  1911; 
Epitre  aux  Romains,  1916;  tpitre  aiix  Galates,  1918,  and  in 
the  same  series  of  Etudes  Bihliques,  Le  Messianisme  chez 
les  Juifs  (200  B.  G.  —  150  A.  D.),  1909;  Etudes  sur  les  Reli- 
gions Semitiques,  1903;  Calmes  has  contributed  V Evangile 
selon  Saint  Jean,  1907;  Gondamin,  S.  J.,  Le  Livre  d'Isaie, 
1905;  Van  Hoonacker,  Les  douze  Petits  Prophetes,  1908; 
P.  Dhorme,  0.  P.,  Les  Livres  de  Samuel,  1910;  E.  Pode- 
CHARD,  S.  S.,  L'Ecclesiaste,  1912;  H.  Vincent,  O.  P.,  Canaan 
d'apr'^s  V exploration  recente,  1907$  A.  Jaussen,  O.  P.,  Cou- 
tumes  des  Arabes  au  pays  de  Moab,  1908.  V Ecole  Pratique 
d'Btudes  Bihlique  etablie  au  Couvent  Dominicain  Saint- 
^lienne  de  Jerusalem,  has  published  the  Revue  Bihlique 
since  1892.     (Translator's  note). 


20 


PREFACE 


it^g^rd  for  German  science,  and  even  of  being 
inspired  by  its  conclusions. 

Ws  should  ask  that  this  accusation  be  not 
accepted  as  well  grounded  before  our  writings 
have  been  read;  for  I  do  not  ask  for  a  rereading 
on  the  part  of  those  who  have  followed  our  work. 
What  is  true  is  that,  not  oversensitive  about  the 
disdain  which  German  periodicals  have  manifested 
for  us  by  silence,  or  even  by  contemptuous  allusions, 
we  have  made  it  a  rule  to  present  to  our  readers 
all  the  German  works  which  were  within  our  reach, 
and  that  our  tone  when  dealing  with  serious  authors 
has  always  been  courteous.  Our  sincerity  in 
analysis  is  almost  the  only  point  for  which  we  have 
received  credit  from  our  opponents.  For  opponents 
they  remained  for  us,  as  soon  as  their  exegesis 
raised  itself  up  to  dogmatic  subjects.  For  a  long 
time  the  Revue  Bihlique  was  the  only  periodical 
which  tried  to  point  out  the  defects  of  their  argu- 
mentation. 

We  have  made  much  use  of  German  works, 
especially  of  those  which  were  not  theological, 
confessing  frankly  both  that  they  were  ahead  of 
our  own  and  that  we  were  anxious  to  catch  up 
with,  and  even  to  surpass  them.  I  stated  above 
that  we  were  in  many  ways  their  tributaries. 
This  expression  should  be  banished  from  the 
domain  of  scholarship.  A  serious  worker  thinks 
only  of  putting  his  good  will  at  the  service  of 
others;  if  they  utihze  it,  he  considers  that  an  honor 
has  been  done  him,  not  that  tribute  has  been  paid. 
On  occasion,  we  have  rendered  our  neighbors  this 
homage,  which  was  only  justice. 


PREFACE  21 

We  shall,  please  God,  treat  them  in  the  future 
as  we  have  done  in  the  past.  It  will  be  easier, 
it  seems  to  me,  to  agree  with  them,  in  many 
things;  for  the  schools  which  promise  to  triumph 
among  them  are  those  whos-e  exegesis  most  closely 
resembles  that  of  the  Church.  These  schools  come 
nearer  to  the  real  meaning  of  the  claims  of  Christ 
and  nearer  to  a  right  understanding  of  His  message. 
If,  knowing  the  true  sense  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  admitting  that  it  faithfully  represents  the 
mind  of  Christ,  they  nevertheless  reject  Him,  it  is 
a  matter  which  concerns  their  conscience  and  their 
prejudices;  it  will  not  be  a  result  of  their  exegesis. 
Their  exegetical  work  is  apt,  not  merely  to  give  a 
strong  confirmation  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
Church  in  the  eyes  of  unbelievers,  but  to  help 
clear  up  for  Catholics  many  an  obscure  point  where 
there  is  no  official  interpretation. 

In  the  presence  of  the  flagrant  contempt  for 
truth  jnanifested  by  certain  German  intellectuals 
during  this  war,  some  Frenchmen  have  come  to 
see  that  it  was  a  mistake  too  readily  to  prefer 
independent  German  exegesis  to  the  exegesis  of 
CathoHcism.  Cathohc  exegesis  is  likely  to  gain 
a  more  favorable  hearing  in  the  future;  but  those 
who  cultivate  it  must  profit  by  the  lessons  we  have 
learned.  We  must  apply  ourselves  to  philology 
and  history  with  more  earnestness;  we  must  unite 
our  efforts,  to  secure  the  advantages  derived  from 
association  and  continuity;  we  mast  be  ready,  too, 
in  the  light  of  a  better  knowledge  of  language  and 
of  the  history  of  doctrine,  to  sacrifice  untenable 
theses,  thus  entering  firmly  upon  the  way  marked 


2*2  PREFACE 

out  by  Pius  X  :  —  "  As  we  must  condemn  the 
rashness  of  those  who,  more  docile  to  the  seductions 
of  novelty  than  to  the  teaching  of  the  Church, 
do  not  hesitate  to  indulge  in  excessive  freedom  in 
the  matter  of  biblical  criticism,  it  is  likewise 
incumbent  upon  us  to  disapprove  of  the  attitude 
of  those  who  do  not  dare  to  break  in  any  way 
with  current  views  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the 
Scriptures,  even  when,  faith  remaining  unaffected, 
the  wise  progress  of  studies  imperiously  invites 
them  to  do  so  ".  (Letter  to  Bishop  Le  Camu», 
Jan.  11,  1906.) 

M.  J.  Lagrange,  0.  P. 

Paris,  March,  1918. 


THE  MEANING  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


ACCORDING   TO 


LUTHER  AND  HIS  FOLLOWERS  IN  GERMANY 


FIRST  LECTURE. 

THE  EXEGESIS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 

I  propose  in  this  series  of  conferences  to  discuss 
the  views  on  Christianity  which  have  found  favor 
with  the  successive  generations  of  the  exegetes  of 
Germany.  The  exegesis  of  the  CathoHcs  of  that 
country  does  not  figure  in  our  program.  It  has, 
indeed,  a  character  of  its  own,  and  its  study  would 
not  be  devoid  of  interest;  but  it  is  in  the  main  only 
a  dependency  of  the  exegesis  of  the  great  Church, 
and  its  exponents  will  not  feel  slighted  if  it  is  not 
labeled  with  the  national  name.  The  words 
"  German  Exegesis  "  may  with  propriety  be 
reserved  to  that  exegesis  of  Germany  which  glories 
in  its  independence,  and  which  is  independent  at 
least  of  the  Catholic  Church;  this  is  the  German 
exegesis  which  is  spoken  of,  and  followed,  in 
England  and  America,  and  which  exerts  no  little 


24  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

influence  even  amongst  us,  Catholics  of  the  Latin 
countries.  It  is  a  form  of  German  activity  which 
has  made  itself  felt  in  the  world  ever  since  the 
days  of  Luther,  and  it  has  shown  incredible  ardor 
during  the  last  century  and  a  half.  Frequently 
hostile  to  Christianity,  it  has  most  often  only 
sought  to  transform  Christianity  according  to  the 
mind  of  the  Germany  of  its  day.  We  shall  endeavor 
to  determine  in  what  this  activity  consists,  the 
means  which  it  employs,  and  its  results. 


The  object  of  the  exegesis  of  the  New  Testament, 
the  purpose  of  the  unwearied  and  intense  efforts 
made  by  so  many  German  scholars  with  all  the 
resources  of  modern  science,  has  been,  at  bottom, 
to  discover  the  real  meaning  of  Christianity. 

I  avoid  the  word  essence,  employed  in  this 
connection  by  one  of  the  most  famous  German 
exegetes;  ^  it  suggests  that  one  is  more  interested 
in  the  selection  of  doctrines  which  are  to  be  retained 
for  practical  purposes  than  in  the  objective  study 
of  facts.  This  ulterior  motive  has  been  a  deter- 
mining influence  with  not  a  few  of  the  critics  whose 
work  we  shall  review.  All  have,  it  seems,  asked 
themselves  how  Christianity  arose,  in  what  it  iirst 
consisted,  how  it  presented  itself  to  the  world, 
and  how  it  was  understood  by  those  who  adopted 


'  1.  Das  Wesen  des  Christentums,  by  Adolph  Harnagk, 
Leipzig,  1900;  Cf.  Revue  Bihlique,  1901,  pp.  110  ff.  Trans- 
lated into  English  under  the  title  What  is  Christianity?  by 
Thomas  Bsiley  Saunders,  2nd.  ed.,  New  York,  1903. 


THE    EXEGESIS    OF    THE    CATHOLIC    CHURCH      25 

it.  That  it  is  essentially  a  religion,  goes  without 
saying;  but  how  was  it  founded,  why  did  it  prevail? 
It  is  to  find  this  out  that  texts  are  scrutinized. 

For  it  is  not  here  question  of  the  religious  or 
moral  value  of  Christianity,  of  the  forces  which 
it  can  offer  to  the  modern  world,  of  the  hght  and 
consolations  which  it  brings  to  souls,  but  of  the 
«tudy  of  its  beginnings  according  to  the  most 
ancient  documents  we  possess,  and  this  is  why 
our  title  speaks  of  exegesis. 

This  Greek  word  "  exegesis  "  means  simply  the 
explanation  of  a  writing.  But  how  is  it,  many 
ask,  that  it  is  still  necessary  to  discuss  the  meaning 
of  writings  which  have  been  so  much  studied  for 
centuries?  Brunetiere  himself  thought  that  this 
study  would  doubtless  soon  be  ended. 

We  might,  indeed,  hope  for  such  a  consummation, 
if  there  were  a  well  established  method  and  if  the 
explanation  of  the  texts  in  question  did  not  involve 
such  serious  consequences.  These  texts  are,  as 
you  know,  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament, 
namely  the  Gospels,  the  Epistles,  especially  those 
of  St.  Paul,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the 
Apocalypse  of  St.  John.  Controversy  always 
comes  back  to  them,  even  with  those  who  do  not 
recognize  in  them  any  sacred  character,  because 
they  are  the  most  ancient  and  the  most  immediate 
docuihents    concerning   Christian    origins. 

Criticism  takes  up  these  documents;  first  of  all 
textual  criticism,  charged  with  the  examination 
of  the  manuscripts.  We  shall  not  speak  of  this 
work  of  textual  criticism,  because  the  texts  of  the 
New  Testament  do  not   present  variants  which 


26  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

are  important  enough  to  involve  a  change  in  the 
concept  of  Christianity. 

Placed  in  presence  of  his  documents  the  exegete 
begins  his  work.  It  requires  great  skill  and  care. 
The  texts  he  would  interpret  are  ancient.  He  has 
to  determine  the  sense  of  words,  and  it  is  frequently 
elusive,  for  lack  of  documents.  He  has  to  ap- 
preciate shades  of  meaning  involved  in  the  peculiar 
grammatical  structure  and  the  style  of  the  period, 
and  take  into  account  the  character  of  his  author. 
He  has,  above  all,  to  endeavor  to  enter  into  this 
author's  mind,  by  the  study  of  the  ideas  of  his 
time  and  of  his  preoccupations;  to  get  at  the 
writer's  sources,  seize  his  allusions  to  things  and 
persons,  place  actions  in  their  setting,  that  is  to 
say,  reconstruct  the  Hfe  of  a  period  which  will 
ever  be  strange  to  us.  This  difficulty  of  projecting 
oneself  into  the  past  is  such  that  scholars  do  not 
always  agree  about  the  interpretation  of  a  verse 
of  Horace.  But  at  least  they  generally  agree  in 
the  case  of  the  classics.  Why  is  it  not  so  in  the 
domain  of  the  New  Testament?  Because  the 
consequences  are  different. 

A  well-known  example  will  show  you  what  I 
mean.  Let  us  take  Homer.  He  was,  in  a  way, 
a  rehgious  teacher.  Men  long  admired  his  gods 
and  goddesses,  those  creations  of  beauty.  The 
Greek  of  average  culture  admitted  in  good  faith 
that  Zeus  and  Aphrodite  —  such  a  majestic  Zeus, 
such  a  charming  Aphrodite !  —  belonged  to  the 
realm  of  the  divine.  Philosophers  had  higher 
ideas  about  the  deity,  but  even  they  could  not  all 
make  up  their  minds  as  did  Plato,  to  expel  the 


THE  EXEGESIS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH   27 

poet  from  a  Greek  republic,  even  if  the  process 
were  facilitated  by  crowning  him  with   flowers. 
So  they  began  to  apply  exegesis  to  the  Homeric 
poets.     It  was  explained  that  the  gods  of  Olympus 
were  powers  of  nature  or  symbols.     Those  who 
thus  explained  the  ancient  songs  affected  a  higher 
admiration  for  the  divine  poet,  who  taught  such 
deep  wisdom  under  so  seductive  a  form.    Young 
people  could  henceforth  go  back  to  the  source  of 
all  poetry,  without  being  enabled  to  justify  bad 
conduct    by    Olympian    examples.      This    Stoic 
exegesis  was  not  without  influence  in  antiquity. 
Modern  critics  ^see  in  it  only  a  strange  aberration. 
No  one  now  believes  that  Aphrodite  was  wounded, 
and  that  a  scratch  drew  from  her  piercing  shrieks. 
But  it  is  in  the  text ;  one  must  see  in  it  a  character 
trait  of  the  goddess  of  pleasure,  without  looking 
for  any  mystery.     Scientific  exegesis  thus  comes 
back   to    popular    exegesis.     But   it   makes   little 
difference  what  we  think  about  Aphrodite.     But 
how  important  for  us  is  the  meaning  of  Christianity  1 
According  as  its  dogmas  are  true  or  false,  all  one's 
life  is  changed ;  and  these  vital  dogmas  are  contained 
in  books  which  support  them  by  miracles  and 
other   supernatural   elements.     According   to   the 
interpretation  one  gives  these  books,  one  will,  or 
will  not,  be  a  Christian,  with  all  the  serious  engage- 
ments which  are  involved  in  the  profession  of  the 
Christian  rehgion,  or  with  all  the  deceptive  facilities 
which  freedom  from  this  yoke  allows. 

But,  it  is  said,  one  may  honestly  take  up  the 
text''  as  they  are,  without  any  other  preoccupation 
than  to  understand  them  according  to  the  laws  of 


28  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

language  and  history.  Only  after  we  know  what 
they  say  shall  we  ask  ourselves  what  is  to  be 
thought  of  their  teaching.  It  may  even  appear 
that  the  best  exegete  must  be  the  one  who  can 
remain  the  most  entirely  unconcerned  about  the 
results  of  exegesis.  Decided  not  to  admit  the 
supernatural,  he  may  recognize  with  equanimity 
that  the  author  he  is  studying  intended  to  tell  of 
supernatural  occurrences.  He  will  aim  only  at 
determining,  in  the  hght  of  history,  just  what  the 
text  meant.  Thus  will  the  exegesis  of  the  New 
Testament  be  carried  on  with  the  same  impartiality 
as  that  of  Homer.  An  unbeliever  may  be  a  perfect 
commentator. 

I  believe  you  would  fmd  it  hard  to  discover  such 
a  neutral.  If  he  exists,  I  wish  to  know  him;  for 
I  accept  him  at  once  as  a  useful  ally.  And,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  I  acknowledge  that  the  exegesis  of 
those  who  are  out  and  out  unbelievers  is  to  me  less 
open  to  suspicion  than  that  of  men  who  cultivate 
exegesis  for  the  advantage  of  their  doctrines.  To 
give  you  my  secret  immediately,  I  beheve  that 
it  is  the  interest  of  our  studies  to  avow  that  the 
exegesis  of  Germany  draws  near  to  us  in  the 
measure  that  her  exegetes  leave  aside  Protestant 
and  philosophical  theories.  This  fact  will  become 
plain  from  the  study  of  German  exegesis  which 
we  are  now  beginning. 

You  propose  to  treat  the  exegesis  of  the  New 
Testament  like  that  of  Homer,  with  the  same 
detachment  as  regards  rehgious  convictions.  Gen- 
tlemen, is  this  possible?  Before  answering  me, 
take  note  of  two  differences.     The  first  difference 


THE  EXEGESIS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH   29 

is  that  the  marvelous  events  related  by  the  ancient 
singer  did  not  take  place  in  his  own  time.  He 
records  old  myths.  The  Greece  of  Pisistratus,  on 
the  eve  of  its  war  against  the  Persians,  confiding 
in  its  gods,  worthy  to  hear  the  deeply  religious 
accents  of  ^schylus,  animated  by  a  faith  which 
was  serious  and  ahnost  tragical,  this  heroic  Greece 
may  have  been  under  an  illusion  regarding  the 
conviction  of  the  poet  whose  grace  charmed  her. 
It  may  be  that  the  people  of  Athens  did  not  as  yet 
understand  the  subtle  irony,  the  nonchalant 
gracefulness  of  the  aristocratic  societies  of  Ionia 
and  of  an  already  refined  period.  It  matters 
little.  When  faith  was  nothing  but  a  sHght 
attachment  to  types  of  beauty,  it  was  easy  either 
to  relegate  the  supernatural  to  the  rank  of  pure 
fables,  or  to  interpret  it  at  will.  Whether  Homer 
believed  or  not  in  the  gods  whose  adventures  he 
sings,  he  assuredly  did  not  pretend  to  guarantee 
the  truth  of  all  he  said.  He  neither  claimed  to  be 
a  witness  of  the  events  themselves  nor  of  a  carefully 
maintained  tradition.  Men  continued  to  admire 
his  stories  without  believing  them.  Is  it  necessary 
to  admit  even  the  existence  of  Priam  aiid  of 
Achilles,  to  shed  tears  as  we  listen  to  the  prayer  of 
the  old  king  bereft  of  his  Hector? 

I  need  hardly  remark  that  it  is  otherwise  with 
the  New  Testament.  The  events  therein  recorded 
took  place  in  the  Hght  of  history.  To  doubt  them 
one  must  reject  the  testimony  of  almost  contempo- 
raneous writings.  Absolute  scepticism  concerning 
the  existence  of  Jesus  and  of  the  Apostles  is  almost 
inconceivable.     We    hear    of   miracles;    they    are 


30  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

affirmed  by  the  disciples  of  the  Master,  and  deter- 
mine the  conviction  of  a  community  which  is  coming 
mto  existence;  it  is  a  rehgion  which  is  taking  shape. 
I  shall  not  insist ;  we  shall  come  back  to  this  capital 
point.     You  must  see,  however,  that  one  cannot 
here  affect  the  attitude  which  critics  take  towards 
the  mythology  of  Homer.     You  may  find  a  non- 
Christian  critic  who  will  maintain  that  no  consider- 
ation  will   prevent  him  from    interpreting   texts 
correctly.     I    doubt  this  imperturbability;  for  if 
he  denies  the  reality  of  the  miraculous,  he  will 
soon  be  obhged  to  conclude  that  the  witnesses 
were    either    deceived    or    deceivers,    he   will   be 
obhged  to  ascribe  to  the  Savior  Himself  the  part 
of  an  accomphce  or  of  the  victim  of  a  delusion.     It 
is  impossible  that  this  attitude  towards  the  witness- 
es and  the  central  person  of  the  New  Testament, 
should  not  affect  exegesis  properly  so  called.     The 
words  themselves  have  not  the  same  meaning  if 
the  apparitions  of  the  risen  Savior  must  be  inter- 
preted as  a  piece  of  trickery  or  an  hallucination. 
Exegesis  obliges  you  to  recognize  in  Jesus  incom- 
parable uprightness.     If  you  take  that  into  account 
you   cannot   make   of   Him   the    companion   and 
accomplice  of  sharpers.     At  the  very  least,  if  the 
supernatural  disappears  from  the  New  Testament, 
it  is  no  longer  anything  but  a  work  without  truth, 
and  hence  without  dignity.     And  since  this  Ue  or 
this  error  still  rules  over  a  great  part  of  the  known 
world,  people  must  be  taught  to  read  between  the 
lines.     What  really  matters  is  not  to  explain  the 
text,  but  to  unmask  the  fraud,  to  find  indications 
of  it  in  the  text  itself.     Will  this  still  be  loyal  and 


THE  EXEGESIS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH   31 

correct  exegesis?     You  agree  that  it  cannot  be. 

And  nevertheless  a  more  serious  danger  threatens 
the  book  and  it  comes  from  those  who  respect  it 
more.  Here  we  come  to  the  second  difference 
between  the  exegesis  of  the  New  Testament  and 
that  of  Homer. 

Why  was  it  thought  undesirable  that  young 
people  should  read  Homer,  or  why  did  interpreters 
seek  violently  to  give  him  a  meaning  he  never 
thought  of?  Because  his  supernatural  was  im- 
moral. His  gods  acted  like  rogues,  and  young 
men  could  cite  Homer  in  defense  of  their  escapades. 
They  studied  him  at  school  during  their  most 
impressionable  years.  The  danger  of  this  education 
was  a  commonplace  of  Christian  apologetics;  and 
the  Christian  apologists  borrowed  it  from  Greek 
and  Latin  comedy.  Whatever  the  divine  poet 
may  have  said  about  it,  ^  his  gods  were  more 
worthless  than  men.  But  one  might,  at  any  rate, 
admire  the  conjugal  love  of  Andromache,  the 
valor  of  Achilles,  the  wifely  constancy  of  Penelope. 
By  removing  the  supernatural,  one  might  safeguard 
morals.  The  two  elements  were  not  inseparable. 
The  gods  of  Homer  had  at  least  the  decency  not 
to  set  themselves  up  as  preachers  of  virtue. 

Is  it  not  a  blasphemy  to  pass  now  to  the  New 
Testament?  No,  since  the  difference  is  evident. 
In  the   primitive  Church,    faith  and  morals   are 


1.  He  says  in  the  Iliad  (IX,  498)  that  the  gods  have 
more  "  virtue,  "  are  more  honored  and  more  powerful 
than  men,  TwvTrep  y.al  [jlcI^cdv  ao£xrj  x',|jit^  xe  ^(r,  xs  and  that 
they  may  be  moved  by  sacrifices  and  prayers;  but  the 
*'  virtue  "  in  question  is  only  the  valor  of  the  hero. 


32  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

closely  bound  together,  as  they  are  in  the  preaching 
of  Jesus.  And,  in  spite  of  so  many  essays  to 
formulate  an  independent  system  of  ethics,  — 
perhaps  because  they  have  been  followed  by 
just  as  many  failures,  —  minds  preoccupied  about 
the  maintenance  of  pubhc  morals,  even  when  they 
have  no  faith,  are  in  no  hurry  to  break  with 
Christianity,  or  with  Jesus  Christ.  If  only  one 
could  interpret  the  Gospel  like  the  apology  of 
Socrates  or  the  dialogues  of  Plato,  in  such  a  way 
as  to  attenuate  its  provoking  supernaturahsm,  to 
make  its  miracles  disappear !  Again,  this  is  not  a 
chimerical  concept.  It  is  a  point  over  which  I 
pass  rapidly,  because  we  shall  come  back  to  it. 
You  readily  see  that  such  a  disposition  is  still 
more  fatal  to  exegesis  than  a  complete  detachment 
from  all  that  Christianity  is,  dogma  and  morals. 
Now  even  Renan  himself,  that  smiling  sceptic, 
ceaselessly  on  guard  against  his  own  tendencies 
to  credulity,  preoccupied  solely,  it  seemed,  about 
not  doubting  enough,  and  about  his  doubt  itself, 
Renan  did  not  resist  the  temptation  to  present  an 
image  of  Jesus  which  was  very  far  from  reality, 
lest  the  charming  Gahlean  should  abandon  the 
modern  world  to  its  harshness  and  vulgarity. 
The  supreme  danger  of  exegesis  strictly  so-called 
is  in  this  ceaselessly  recurring  effort  to  reconcile 
the  texts  of  the  Gospel  with  philosophical  opinions 
or  moral  tendencies.  Now  you  know  that  philo- 
sophy and  morals  are  the  two  things  in  which  the 
devotees  of  German  culture  particularly  glory. 
And  because  she  does  not  wish  to  renounce  a 
Christianity  which  was  regenerated  by  becoming 


THE  EXEGESIS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH   33 

German  with  Luther,  and  which  she  calls  evange- 
lical, Germany  tirelessly  works  at  the  exegetical 
problem  presented  by  the  New  Testament. 

In  a  word,  gentlemen,  unlike  the  writings  of 
Homer  or  Vergil,  Thucydides  or  Titus  Livius, 
Demosthenes  or^  Cicero,  the  New  Testament 
contains  an  affirmation  which  concerns  us,  which 
still  asserts  a  claim  upon  us.  The  unbeliever,  if 
he  abandons  practical  scepticism  to  examine  into 
it  and  to  discuss  it,  must  demohsh  its  pretentions 
and  its  titles;  and  this  places  him  very  far  from 
that  elegant  ivory  tower  where  one  may  in  peace 
relish  the  antique  form  while  smiling  at  the  child- 
ishness of  the  content. 

And  if  the  debate  bore  only  upon  the  correct 
interpretation  of  texts !  But,  precisely  because 
the  texts  are  troublesome,  exegesis  devotes  itself 
to  forms  of  activity  which  are,  strictly  speaking, 
outside  of  its  province.  The  custom  has  prevailed 
to  speak,  for  instance,  of  the  "  exegesis  of  Renan,  " 
to  indicate  a  whole  conception  of  the  beginnings 
of  Christianity.  In  time  it  was  noticed  —  it  was 
especially  from  the  days  of  Strauss  —  that  if 
anything  except  the  traditional  interpretation  was 
to  be  drawn  from  texts,  it  was  necessary  to  begin 
by  opposing  one  to  another  the  writings  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  even  to  dissect  the  do- 
cuments. It  was  only  with  these  broken  and 
worked  over  materials  that  a  new  edifice  could  be 
erected.  Literary  criticism  could  succeed  with 
the  work  only  by  utihzing  history,  which  with 
its  now  highly  developed  powers,  could  serve  to 
date  the  writings.     Once  it  had  entered  upon  the 


34  THE   LEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

scene,  history  must  be  interrogated  concerning 
the  intellectual  and  moral  state  of  Israel,  and  of 
all  the  ancient  world.  German  exegesis  has  not 
recoiled  before  this  inquiry,  thus  greatly  enlarging 
the  domain  of  a  science  erstwhile  confined  to  the 
explanation  of  the  canonical  texts. 


Before  entering  upon  a  review  of  the  work 
accomplished  by  German  exegetes  in  this  vast 
field,  we  need  to  hght  up  our  way,  and  perhaps 
to  anticipate  certain  doubts.  We  have  spoken 
of  the  danger  of  studying  ancient  texts  with 
preconceived  ideas.  But  if  one  adheres  to  the 
dogmas  of  the  Church,  does  he  not  expose  himself 
to  the  same  danger?  Does  the  Cathohc  Church  of 
to-day,  after  nineteen  centuries,  preserve  the 
primitive  meaning  of  Christianity?  Is  she  not 
prone  to  read  into  it  what  she  beheves?  What 
are  her  methods,  and  what  guarantee  do  they 
offer? 

I  hear  your  answer  beforehand;  if  I  recall  what 
you  already  know,  it  is  to  get  a  clearer  notion, 
together  with  you,  of  the  right  way,  before  taking 
up  the  details  of  the  German  systems  which  have 
succeeded  one  another  since  Luther. 

The  Church,  we  say,  is  in  the  right  conditions 
to  expound  correctly  the  meaning  of  primitive 
Christianity. 

The  first  and  principal  of  these  conditions,  the 
only  one  which  is  decisive,  is  that  she  is  assisted  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  do  so.     For  us,  Catholic  Christ- 


THE  EXEGESIS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH   35 

ians,  it  is  a  matter  of  faith;  and  it.  is  in  the  logic 
of  things.  We  beheve  that  God  has  given  reve- 
lation to  man  and  that  He  assures  the  benefit  of 
it  in  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  has,  conse- 
quently, seen  to  it  that  this  revelation  be  preserved 
intact.  It  is  contained  in  the  Sacred  Books;  it 
is  necessary  then  that  the  Church,  the  custodian 
of  revelation,  be  assured  of  transmitting  faithfully 
the  meaning  of  the  Word  of  God. 

But  even  if  we  leave  aside  this  mysterious 
element,  which  the  human  mind  cannot  grasp, 
we  may  claim  that  the  Church  possesses  the 
disposition  and  the  method  necessary  for  a  correct 
exegesis. 

We  say,  then,  that  the  Church  is  in  the  right 
state  of  mind;  its  method  is  based  on  tradition, 
and  on  the  synthesis  of  the  results  furnished  by  all 
the  means  at  her  disposal;  she  practices  an  exegesis 
characterized  by  good  sense  and  clarity.  We 
must  explain  these  points. 

I  set  down  as  a  principle  of  criticism  that  the 
understanding  of  texts  is  easior  when  one  is  in  the 
same  state  of  mind  as  the  author.  What  is  the 
significance  of  the  rules  about  taking  into  account 
the  local  coloring,  the  environment  in  which  the 
writers  moved,  the  time,  the  monuments,  the 
customs,  the  hfe?  Criticism  aspires  only  to  one 
thing  which  is,  alas  !  multiple  and  diverse  :  to  live 
in  thought  in  the  time  and  place  in  which  the 
author  acted,  and,  if  not  to  penetrate  into  his 
thought,  at  least  to  take  a  place  among  his  auditors, 
to  acquire  their  dispositions,  to  read  and  listen  like 
them. 


36  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

If  this  principle  is  evident,  there  is  another  thing 
just  as  certain,  and  that  is  that  the  New  Testament 
came  from  authors  who  beheved  in  the  supernat- 
ural and  who  wrote  for  people  deeply  imbued 
with  the  same  faith,  for  whom  miracles  were 
possible.  Now,  the  Cathohc  Church  —  whether 
we  admire  or  condemn  her  for  it  —  is  also  deeply 
imbued  with  faith  in  the  supernatural.  You  do 
not  ask  me  to  define  the  supernatural  and  the 
miraculous.  It  would  be  necessary  to  begin 
another  series  of  lessons.  I  take  the  words  in  their 
current  meaning  of  a  divine  intervention  outside 
of  the  normal  course  of  secondary  causes.  Cath- 
olics are  not  behind  others  in  explaining  natural 
phenomena  without  recourse  to  voluntary  agents. 
But  the  Church  beheves,  as  people  did  in  the  days 
of  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  transcendency  of  God,  His 
sovereign  power  over  nature,  the  existence  of 
angels  and  demons,  the  possibihty  of  miraculous 
cures.  When  she  meets  these  facts  in  Scripture, 
she  will  not  be  tempted  to  translate  them  into 
natural  phenomena  in  order  to  explain  them  more 
easily.  She  is,  then,  in  an  excellent  condition  of 
mind  to  interpret  the  texts  just  as  they  are. 

Men  often  reproach  the  Church  with  the  immu- 
tabihty  of  her  dogmas,  which  they  declare  anti- 
quated. It  would  be  equitable  not  to  reproach 
her  at  the  same  time  with  modernizing  her  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture.  She  confronts  criticism 
with  courage;  let  her  be  credited  at  least  with 
sincerity. 

Not  only  is  the  Church  in  the  same  state  of 
mind,    regarding   the    supernatural,    as   the    first 


THE  EXEGESIS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH   37 

Christian  community;  she  is  the  same  society, 
depositary  of  the  same  faith;  she  continues  the 
primitive  community  by  an  uninterrupted  tradition. 
She  admits,  indeed,  just  as  unreservedly  as  did 
the  Protestants  of  old,  the  authority  of  Scripture 
to  teach  revealed  truth.  Every  Christian  knows 
that  God  revealed  to  men  certain  truths  useful 
to  their  salvation.  A  book  is  naturally  an  effective 
means  to  preserve  these  truths;  a  book  inspired 
of  God  preserves  them  with  a  kind  of  divine 
authenticity.  The  word  of  God  which  resounded 
in  the  ear,  or  rather  in  the  soul,  of  the  prophets, 
is  thus  perpetuated.  The  obHgation  under  which 
the  Israelites  were  to  look  upon  the  Bible  as  a 
divine  book  and  to  read  it,  kept  them  in  contact 
with  the  voice  of  the  Lord.  And  this  voice  had 
been  able  to  render  certain  truths  very  clear.  An 
Israelite  could  not  have  the  least  doubt  concerning 
the  affirmation  of  the  Bible  that  God  is  one,  wise, 
almighty,  and  that  He  exacts  of  man  a  certain 
moral  perfection.  And  likewise  we  do  not  for  a 
moment  think  of  denying  the  authority  of  the 
writings  of  the  New  Testament  about  the  original 
meaning  of  Christianity.  But  we  add  thereto 
the  information  which  is  conveyed  to  us  by  tradi- 
tion. We  are  forced  to  do  this  by  history,  for  it 
is  very  clear  that  the  faith  was  preached  before 
the  primitive  Christian  thought  of  writing,  and 
that  the  writings  we  possess  call  for  this  comple- 
ment. The  Gospels  are  but  a  part  of  the  teaching 
given  by  the  Apostles  concerning  the  life  and 
miracles  of  Christ,  concerning  His  Passion  and 
Resurrection.     These  facts  were  interpreted  in  a 


38  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

certain  way;  thr-y  had  consequently  a  divine 
meaning  which  the  Gospels  do  not  develop,  and 
which  the  Epistles  of  the  Apostles  take  for  granted 
rather  than  enunciate  clearly.  Take  St.  Paul, 
for  instance.  He  explains  to  the  Romans  at 
sufficient  length  that  the  Gospel  is  a  power  of  God 
which  works  through  faith.  But  he  was  satisfied 
with  a  passing  allusion  to  the  objects  of  faith 
known  by  all  Christians.  ^  He  reproaches  the 
Galatians  with  abandoning  the  Gospel,  the  one 
he  had  preached  to  them ;  but  he  designates  it  only 
as  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  crucified.  This  Gospel  is 
sufficient  without  the  law;  this  point  he  proves 
in  detail ;  but  he  does  not  say  in  what  the  Gospel 
consists.  H,  then,  Scripture  had  been  the  only 
means  to  assure  the  preservation  of  a  doctrine 
which  is  much  richer  than  the  "  weak  and  needy 
elements  "  of  the  old  Law,  God  would  have 
provided  very  poorly  for  its  preservation.  The 
answer  of  tradition  is  more  complete  and  more 
precise.  The  New  Testament  contains  neither 
a  creed  nor  a  sacramentary.  And  doctrine  is 
preserved  in  the  Church  as  an  ever  living  and 
acting  faith. 

Precisely !  it  will  be  said.  This  faith  lives, 
consequently  it  evolves,  hke  all  human  things. 
With  time  it  will  give  to  the  questions  put  before 
it  answers  more  complete  and  more  precise. 

Granted,  but  this  development  is  not  a  defor- 
mation. The  Church,  in  virtue  of  a  supernatural 
logic,  which  is  at  the  same  time  perfectly  rational, 


Rom. 


THE  EXEGESIS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH   39 

regards  the  truth,  which  she  has  received  from 
God  Himself,  as  having  an  immutable  character, 
and  she  is  intent  on  transmitting  it  just  as  she 
received  it  in  its  substantial  elements. 

But  do  not  forget  that  we  are  deahng  here  with 
this  question  of  the  development  of  doctrine  only 
from  the  viewpoint  of  the  exegete.  The  difficulty 
that  is  urged  regards  only  the  sincerity  of  interpre- 
tation. It  may  be  thought  that  the  exegesis  of  the 
Church,  being  imposed  upon  her  by  her  dogma, 
will  lack  sincerity  since  it  will  lack  hberty.  The 
objection  does  not  apply  to  Cathohc  exegesis. 
The  danger  it  calls  attention  to  may  exist  only  for 
a  society  which  has  no  other  rule  of  faith  than 
the  Bible,  and  is  bound  to  find  therein  all  the 
truths  which  it  professes.  But  such  is  not  the 
case  with  the  Church.  Why  should  she  torture 
texts  to  get  from  them  what  she  can  get  from 
tradition?  A  Cathohc  may  and  must  beheve  in 
dogma  not  enunciated  in  Scripture,  as,  for  ins- 
tance, in  the  perpetual  virginity  of  Mary.  He 
is  not,  then,  obhged  to  have  recourse  to  any 
violent  form  of  exegesis.  The  texts  remain  un- 
disturbed. 

Will  the  situation  be  the  same  in  the  case  of  a 
dogma  about  which  the  Sacred  Books,  do  speak  but 
which  has  taken  on  developments  in  the  course 
of  the  centuries,  clothed  itself  with  formulas 
unknown  to  the  primitive  Church?  I  do  not 
maintain  that  no  commentator  has  given  way  to 
a  desire  to  discover  in  the  Scriptures,  in  a  more 
or  less  explicit  way,  what  was  therein  contained 
only  implicitly.     Some  interpreters  have  not  been 


40  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

sufficiently  concerned  about  tlie  liistorical  meaning 
of  the  words  of  the  Bible,  their  exact  bearing  at  the 
time  when  they  passed  from  the  mouth  of  the 
Apostle  to  the  ears  of  the  first  disciples. 

But  these  faults  were  most  often  committed  in 
emulation  of  the  example  of  those  who  could 
profess  no  doctrine  which  they  did  not  read  in 
Scripture,  because  they  had  given  up  the  conception 
of  a  living  Church,  assisted  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to 
develop  dogma  as  well  as  to  conserve  it.  They 
were  not  in  the  logic  of  a  system  in  which  due 
weight  is  given  to  the  principle  of  a  living  tradition. 
If  the  formulas  are  not  in  Scripture,  we  shall  not 
feel  obliged  to  read  them  into  it.  And  thus  we 
have  the  sincerity  of  exegesis  guaranteed,  at  the 
same  time  as  its  freedom. 

Allow  me  to  go  to  the  end  of  my  thought.  I  ask 
you  not  to  go  beyond  it.  The  divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ  is  assuredly  taught  by  the  New  Testament. 
But  if  this  fundamental  dogma  were  not  therein 
contained,  the  Church,  even  in  this  matter,  would 
not  be  obhged  to  force  the  texts;  her  living  faith 
would  be  enough  for  her.  And,  in  fact,  the  three 
first  Gospels  do  not  contain  it  in  such  a  clear 
manner  as  the  fourth.  The  Church  was  then  able 
to  live  without  the  sublime  teaching  of  the  beloved 
disciple.  We  must  praise  God  for  having  given  us 
St.  John;  but  St.  John  in  no  way  constrains  us  to 
change  the  interpretations  of  the  first  Gospels. 

Our  opponents  add  a  further  objection,  namely 
that  CathoHcs  may  not  give  to  the  texts  an 
interpretation  which  is  contrary  to  the  Church's 
doctrine.     This  is  true.     But,  in  the  first  place, 


THE    EXEGESIS    OF    THE    CATHOLIC    CHURCH      41 

it  must  be  allowed  that  this  is  perfectly  rational, 
if  one  hold  as  we  do  that  the  dogma  of  the  Church 
has  not  been  transformed.  The  Church  has 
received  the  Scriptures,  and  it  is  after  all  on  her 
authority  that  we  receive  them  ourselves.  The 
books  have  not  changed,  we  know  by  textual 
criticism.  How  suppose  that  the  first  Christians 
would  have  revered  books  containing  a  doctrine 
contrary  to  that  which  the  Apostles  had  delivered 
to  them?  There  are  not  two  Gospels,  St.  Paul 
assured  them.  "  Though  we,  or  an  angel  from 
heaven  preach  to  you  a  Gospel  besides  that  which 
we  preached  to  you,  let  him  be  anathema.  "  ^ 
The  Galatians  nearly  succumbed  to  the  seduction. 
But  the  Apostle  was  watching,  and  the  Christian 
communities,  very  attentive  to  rehgious  questions, 
mutually  controlled  one  another.  Remember  how 
the  matter  of  Judaic  observances  was  referred  to 
a  plenary  meeting  at  Jerusalem.  ^  Would  that 
very  sensitive  faith  have  received  as  the  word  of 
Christ  writings  contrary  to  what  the  Fathers  of 
that  faith  had  taught? 

But  do  you  insist  on  taking  up  the  hypothesis 
of  a  transformation  of  dogma?  Well,  in  that  case, 
it  is  the  primitive  faith  which  would,  in  the  long 
run,  have  transformed  itself  according  to  the 
doctrines  of  Scripture.  So  it  is  impossible  to  imag- 
ine that  the  present  faith  of  the  Church  should 
obhge  us  to  interpret  the  New  Testament  wrongly. 
You  understand  that   I   consent  to   discuss  this 


1.  Gal.  I,  8 

2.  Acts  XV. 


42  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

chimerical  case  only  in  order  to  show  the  absurdity 
of  the  objection. 

There  may  remain  a  difficulty  about  that^  rule 
of  the  Church  which  requires  that  Scripture  be 
interpreted  according  to  the  unanimous  consensus 
of  the  Fathers,  in  matters  of  faith  and  morals, 
such  as  that  with  which  we  are  now  deahng,  when 
inquiring  into  the  meaning  of  Christianity.  This 
traditional  interpretation  restricts  indeed  the 
independence  of  the  modern  critic;  but  he  should 
rejoice  to  find  therein  a  help,  as  do  workers  in  any 
other  field.  We  ask  the  primitive  Christians  what 
primitive  Christianity  meant.  If  they  do  not 
agree,  there  is  no  traditional  interpretation.  If 
they  do  agree,  why  reject  their  testimony? 

We  may  here  remark  that  this  method  is  precisely 
that  which  the  most  recent  and  most  scientific 
exegesis  seeks  to  practice  :  it  is  eager  to  consult 
all  possible  sources  of  information.  The  difference 
is  only  in  this,  that  the  Church  has  a  preference 
for  that  information,  about  the  meaning  of  Christ- 
ianity, which  comes  from  those  who  embraced  it, 
doubtless  after  they  had  become  well  acquainted 
with  it.  She  holds  firmly  to  the  testimony  of 
the  ancients.  And  this  testimony  is  especially 
that  of  the  Fathers,  of  those  who  were  the  pastors 
of  the  little  Christian  communities,  of  those  who 
had  the  responsibility  of  teaching,  who  kept  in 
close  communion  with  the  other  churches,  who 
were  above  all  sohcitous  about  the  purity  of  that 
faith  which  is  the  earnest  of  life  everlasting. 
I  know  that,  absorbed  as  they  were  by  these 
functions,  they  did  not  always  have  so  cultivated 


THE  EXEGESIS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH   43 

a  mind  as  those  who  kept  in  touch  with  ancient 
letters.  A  St.  Justin,  a  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
an  Origen,  interest  us  more  than  a  St.  Clement  of 
Rome,  a  St.  Ignatius,  or  a  St.  Irenseus,  on  account 
of  their  taste  for  philosophy,  the  extent  of  their 
erudition,  their  noble  pride  in  proving  to  those 
whose  curiosity  was  aroused  that  Christianity  and 
its  Scriptures  had  in  them  all  that  was  needed  to 
stand  inquiry  and  criticism. 

But  were  not  these  powerful  personalities  tempt- 
ed, in  order  to  make  victory  surer,  to  take  untried 
paths,  and,  very  specially,  to  interpret  Scripture 
in  their  own  way?  With  an  instinct  which  was 
very  sure,  because  it  was  divine,  the  Church 
understood,  before  modern  studies  of  the  science 
of  rehgions,  that  rehgion  is  of  its  nature  a  social 
institution,  and  that  the  real  sense  of  Christianity 
was  to  be  found  more  integrally  in  Christian 
society  than  in  the  speculations  of  her  most  brilliant 
sons.  If  we  had  to  give  a  decisive  proof  of  the 
infallible  tact  of  her  exegesis,  it  would  suffice  to 
recall  that  she  refused  to  have  recourse  to  the  too 
facile  proceedings  of  allegory,  which  by  a  stroke 
of  genius  Origen  discovered  as  a  means  to  draw 
her  out  of  difficulties.  She  rejected  this  allegorical 
method  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  she  saw  in 
the  Old  Testament  a  prediction,  almost  a  sketch  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  founded  by  Jesus  Christ. 
There  was  in  the  personages  or  the  facts  of  the 
ancient  history  —  St.  Paul  teaches  clearly  ^  — 
types  or  figures  of  the  new  covenant.     There  was 

1.     I  Cor.  X,  11;  cf.  Gal.  iv,  24. 


44  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

offered  an  easy  passage  from  these  types  to  symbols 
emptied  of  concrete  reality;  and  how  many  diffi- 
culties at  once  disappeared !  But  in  overcoming 
difficulties  of  detail,  there  was  a  fatal  danger  to 
which  she  was  exposed.  Criticism  would  not  fail 
to  stigmatize  this  too  convenient  subterfuge. 
Critics  would  have  reminded  us  of  the  example 
of  Homer.  They  would  have  shown  us  a  Chris- 
tianity ashamed  of  its  cradle,  hke  those  religions 
which,  when  they  are  no  longer  in  harmony  with 
their  intellectual  environment,  contrive  to  trans- 
form their  gross  and  puerile  myths  by  recourse  to 
philosophical  allegories. 

What  would  be  left  of  Christianity,  if  there  had 
been  applied  to  it  the  questionable  treatment  to 
which  Philo  of  Alexandria  submitted  Moses,  in 
order  to  make  him  acceptable  to  the  Greeks? 
The  ancient  Fathers  followed  the  dictates  of  their 
honesty,  and  remained  faithful  to  tradition  because 
it  was  the  rule  of  their  faith.  Allegory  was  not 
admitted  as  a  general  rule  for  interpreting  the  Old 
Testament,  and  it  did  not  even  touch  the  exegesis 
of  the  New.  Modern  criticism  will,  then,  acknow- 
ledge that  the  Church  was  well  served  in  this  very 
serious  matter,  by  her  attachment  to  tradition. 
Again,  it  will  grant  that,  for  the  understanding 
of  the  primitive  meaning  of  Christianity,  the  letter 
of  Clement  of  Rome,  the  letters  of  St.  Ignatius,  are 
scarcely  less  important  than  the  writings  of  the 
New  Testament. 

Consequently,  neither  tradition  nor  the  Bible 
may  be  isolated.  Assuredly  God  could,  by  His 
almighty    pov/er,    have    caused   the   truth   to    be 


THE  EXEGESIS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH   45 

conserved  in  the  Church  without  the  gift  of  inspired 
writings.  But  nothing  prevents  us  from  admiring 
the  means  His  wisdom  did  choose.  Tradition  is 
hke  running  water;  it  follows  a  regulated  course 
only  when  it  is  contained  within  banks.  These 
banks  are,  together  with  the  assistance  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  the  written  word  of  God.  But  this 
word  is  understood  all  the  better  for  being  per- 
petuated in  an  institution.  Ask  Hellenists  what 
light  literature  receives  from  the  inscriptions  and 
papyri.  The  inscriptions  frequently  contain  the 
text  of  laws  to  which  literature  made  only  fugitive 
allusions.  The  papyri  restore  to  hfe  the  society 
to  which  the  literature  was  addressed.  How 
great  their  satisfaction,  when  a  modern  custom 
gives  a  key  to  an  ancient  text !  ^  It  should  not 
seem  unhkely  to  a  scholar  that  the  Church,  which 
has  celebrated  the  Eucharist  from  the  first  hour 
of  her  existence,  offers  the  best  commentary  on 
the  words  of  consecration. 

Traditional,  the  method  of  the  Church  is  synthetic 
in  dealing  with  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament. 

When  I  say  that  the  Church's  method  is  syn- 
thetic, I  mean  that  she  disengages  from  all  the 
New    Testament    writers    a    doctrine    which    she 


1.  An  example.  Greek  custom  allowed  a  father  to  drive 
from  home  an  undutiful  child,  to  exclude  him  from  the 
family  and  from  his  succession.  It  had  been  supposed  that 
this  apokeryxis  was  only  fictitious,  a  theme  for  rhetors' 
declamations.  M.  Guq  has  proved  that  it  was  really 
practiced  in  antiquity  and  has  discos  ered  an  act  of  the 
kind  drawn  up  in  1911  by  a  notary  of  Kalabryta,  in  the 
Peloponnesus,  (Comptes  rendus  de  V Academie  des  Inscrip- 
tions el  Belles- Lettres     1917,   p.   353   ff.) 


46  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

esteems  common  to  all.  Here  criticism  interrupts 
our  very  first  words.  This  is  precisely,  it  points 
out,  a  method  to  be  avoided,  for  it  neglects,  both 
the  individual  opinions  of  the  authors,  and  the 
development  or  evolution  of  doctrines.  To  explain 
St.  Matthew  by  St.  John,  without  regard  to  the 
proper  genius  of  each  writer,  the  purpose  he 
pursued,  the  time  which  elapsed  between  the 
primitive  catechesis  and  the  redaction  of  the  fourth 
Gospel,  means  to  condemn  oneself  to  unnatural, 
forced  harmonization,  to  lose  sight  of  the  finer 
shades,  to  confuse  the  situations. 

It  would  not  be  honest  to  deny  that  excessive 
harmonization  has  appeared  here  and  there  in 
Gathohc  commentators.  In  the  second  century, 
Tatian  came  near  mixing  everything  up  by  com- 
bining the  four  Gospels  into  one.  But  the  Church 
protested,  too  energetically  we  would  almost  say, 
since  we  are  deprived  of  Tatian's  Diatesseron. 

She  regarded  the  fourfold  Gospel  as  sacred,  and 
did  not  permit  that  the  individuality  of  any  one 
Gospel  should  be  lost.  She  safeguarded  the 
characteristic  shades  of  meaning  of  each;  but  she 
considered  that  it  was  a  matter  of  shades,  and 
that  the  apostolic  writings,  redacted  within  a 
rather  short  period,  did  not  admit  of  substantial 
differences.  Our  argument  is  at  bottom  the  same 
as  for  the  harmony  of  tradition  and  Scripture;  it  is 
merely  apphed  to  a  more  restricted  field.  Primitive 
Christianity  will  never  be  understood  so  long  as 
people  refuse  to  treat  it  as  a  society.  ^     If  the 

1.  St.  Augustine  has  admirably  said,  In  Scripturis 
discimus  Christum,  in  Scripturis  discimus  Ecdesiam  (Epist. 
CV,  14). 


THE    EXEGESIS    OF    THE    CATHOLIC    CHURCH      47 

fourth  Gospel,  to  adhere  to  our  example,  really 
emanates,  as  we  affirm,   from  John,  the  son  of 
Zebedee,    eye-witness    and    disciple    of    the    first 
hour,  it  must  be  granted  that  it  represents  the 
convictions  of  the  first  Christian  generation.     And 
in  the  hypothesis  that  it  is  the  work  of  another 
John  or  of  another  not  a  John,  would  the  com- 
munities have  received  it  if  they  had  found  it  in 
disagreement   with   the    other    Gospels   regarding 
the  capital  point  of  the  wor  hip  to  be  rendered  to 
Jesus   Christ?     Each   Gospel   related   in   its   own 
way  the  threefold  denial  of  St.  Peter  and  even 
the    apparitions    of    the    risen    Christ.     Since    all 
came  with  recognized  authority,  it  was  supposed 
naturally   that   they   were   in    agreement   in   the 
main,   despite  circumstances  special  to  each.     It 
was  a  matter  of  subtle  questions  which  did  not 
affect   the    faith.     But   would   the    early   Church 
have  borne  with  an  anonymous  or  supposititious 
writing,  contrary  to  the  writings  aheady  received, 
which  would  have  completely  changed  both  relig- 
ious    convictions    and    conditions     of     worship? 
The  synthetic  method  —  which  is  not  a  method 
of  harmonization  at  any  price  —  must  at  the  very 
least  be  tried  first,  in  deahng  with  sacred  documents 
as  well  as  with  others.     It  does  not  start  out  with 
the  supposition  that  there  was  no  controversy,  no 
divergencies    of   views   in   the   primitive   Church. 
Evidence  is  too  clear  that  there  were.     But  just 
because  these  divergencies  are  known  to  us,  they 
help  us  to  draw  a  line  between  the  region  which 
was   agitated   and   the   region   which   was   calm. 
There  was,  we  see,  some  things  concerning  which 
all  agreed.     Jewish   Christians   regarded   it  as   a 


48  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

crime  for  St.  Paul  to  reject  the  Jewish  Law. 
Maybe,  for  all  is  possible  in  such  matters,  some  one 
also  reproached  him  for  admitting  the  pre-existence 
of  the  Son  of  God  in  the  bosom  of  His  Father. 
But  if  the  first  point  was  agitated  in  the  primitive 
Church,  the  second  was  not.  It  was,  according 
to  St.  Paul,  the  foundation  of  the  whole  Christian 
faith.  The  fourth  Gospel  and  the  Pauline  Epistles 
are  at  one  on  this  basic  truth. 

Finally,  because  the  CathoUc  Church  repre- 
sents a  collective  opinion,  she  is  httle  given  to 
accentuating  in  a  sacred  writer  views  which  might 
seem  particular.  It  is  not  she  who  will  draw  from 
an  obscure  phrase,  or  an  obscure  word,  a  whole 
system  which  would  be  in  contradiction  with  views 
of  the  same  author  elsewhere  clearly  set  forth. 
St.  Augustine  well  expressed  her  mind  when  he 
said  that  Scripture  contains  hardly  anything  in 
obscure  places  that  is  not  clearly  enunciated  some- 
where else. 

This  is  an  exegesis  of  good  sense  and  clarity 
which  we  will  understand  better  by  examples  of 
the  contrary  practice.  Let  us  cite  only  a  case 
upon  which  we  shall  not  have  to  come  back.  The 
fourth  Gospel  says  that  the  Word  was  made  flesh. 
We  genuflect  at  Mass  when  we  read  these  sublime 
words.  But  this  is  not  a  reason  to  interpret  them 
rigorously,  as  if  they  were  isolated  from  all  context ; 
we  do  not  claim  that  the  Word  really  became 
flesh,  or  that  He  united  Himself  to  the  flesh  alone^ 
without  taking  a  human  soul.  The  individual 
mind  may  delight  in  a  narrow  interpretation,  in 
disengaging  therefrom  a  new  doctrine,  in  opposition 


THE  EXEGESIS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH   49 

to  ancient  opinions  and  the  theology  of  its  time. 
The  Church,  a  collective  authority,  is  the  natural 
home  of  common  sense.     It  will  point  out  that  the 
Apostles  cannot  either  have  conceived  or  trans- 
mitted the  view  that  there  was  no  human  soul  in 
Jesus  Christ,  who  dwelt  amongst  them  hke  any 
other  man  and  experienced  all  the  sentiments  of 
man's  soul,  save  those  which  are  caused  by  personal 
sin.     And  St.  John  would  assuredly  not  have  shown 
the  Word  weeping  at  the  tomb  of  Lazarus,  had  he  y 
not  thought  of  Him  as  incarnate  at  the  same  time 
in  the  soul  and  in  the  flesh.     So  it  is  when  St.  Paul 
says  that  Christ  emptied  Himself,  that  is  to  say, 
divested  Himself  of  the  form  of  God.  to  take  the 
form    of    a    servant.     This  statement   about   the 
kenosis,  as  it  is  called,  cannot  express  an  impos- 
sibility,  hke  a  real  putting  aside  of  the  divinity. 
Scrip tur'e  expresses  divine  reaUties.     Is  it  surprising 
that    language,    crushed    by    the    subject-matter, 
should  at  times  be  obscure,  and  that  the  expression 
of  subhme  truths  should  sometimes  take  on,  under 
the  light  which  floods  them,  a  paradoxical  aspect? 
Far   from   scrutinizing  what   is  strange  in   these 
expressions,  in  order  to  extract  therefrom  a  still 
stranger  dogma,  in  contradiction  with  tradition, 
with   the   other   sacred   writers,   with   the   writer 
himself,  the  Church  understands  them  in  accordance 
with  the   current   teaching   of  the   author.     This 
has  always  passed  for  good  method. 

It  is  not  a  reason  to  negtect  the  modalities  of 
expression,  or  the  progress  of  thought.  The  rules 
of  interpretation  do  not  forbid  our  seeking  to  fmd 
out  how  Christianity  developed  with  time  in  the 


50  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

soul  of  St.  Paul.  This  inquiry  has  given  no 
marked  result,  as  far  as  I  know;  but  there  is  no 
objection  to  such  study  if  it  is  not  carried  on  in 
disregard  of  a  principle  that  governs  the  entire 
process  of  interpretation.  If  it  were  allowed  to 
take  some  of  St.  Paul's  expressions  in  a  sense 
which  contradicts  his  usual  teaching,  we  should  be 
in  presence  not  of  development  but  of  incoherence. 
We  never  allow  of  such  an  interpretation  of  the 
words  of  a  reasonable  man  if  there  is  any  way 
to  avoid  it.  Why  should  a  St.  Paul  be  made  an 
exception? 

We  are  not  casting  discredit  on  this  method  of 
the  Church  by  calling  it  the  method  of  average 
common  sense.  And  as  it  is  the  method  fitted  to 
explain  the  doctrine  of  a  society,  it  is  hkewise  that 
which  naturally  emanates  from  a  society.  As- 
suredly authority  in  the  Church  belongs  to  one 
Head,  the  Pope,  and  to  the  pastors  united  with 
him,  the  bishops.  But  it  is  clear  from  history 
that  the  Head  does  not  pass  a  definitive  judgment 
except  upon  a  recognized  doctrine.  While  pro- 
claiming, in  virtue  of  his  supreme  authority,  the 
dogma  of  the  Immaculate  Conception,  Pius  IX 
was  pleased  to  recall  "  the  constant  sentiment  of 
the  Church,  "  perpetuus  Ecdesix  sensus,  "  the 
singular  agreement  of  the  bishops  and  of  the 
faithful,  "  singularis  Episcoporum  ac  fidelium 
conspiratio.  All  this  must  apply  to  exegesis, 
wherein  the  faithful  are  represented  by  the  doctors, 
who  are  united  to  the  bishops.  In  this„  under- 
standing nothing  excessive  can  prevail,  nothing 
strange  has  any  chance  of  success.     Novelties  are 


THE  EXEGESIS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH   51 

not  favored.  It  is  incontestably  true  that  progress 
in  detail  is  not  the  product  of  the  collectivity;  a 
collectivity  may  show  itself  too  indifferent  in 
regard  to  such  progress.  For  the  official  exegesis 
of  the  Church  is  one  thing  and  the  exegesis  of 
scholars  is  another,  although  scholars  cooperate 
in  the  official  interpretation  and  depend  upon  the 
rules  set  for  them.  It  is  the  current  and  normal 
difficulty  of  actions  which  mutually  penetrate  one 
another.  Suffice  it  to  say  here  that  the  hamper- 
ing of  personal  initiative  does  not  result  from 
principles  and  that  it  may  be  obviated.  There 
exists  no  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  matter  with 
which  we  are  now  concerned,  the  first  principles 
of  the  faith,  as  the  Church  reads  them  in  the 
Scriptures.  Here  she  interprets  as  a  society  what 
was  the  doctrine  of  a'  society,  a  society  which  is 
none  other  than  herself  perpetuated  in  time;  and 
no  Catholic  has  any  hesitation  about  following  her. 

And  now  let  me  state  in  brief,  with  no  claim 
to  completeness,  and  simply  with  a  view  to  com- 
paring the  exegesis  of  the  Church  with  the  German 
exegesis  within  a  given  frame,  what  is,  according 
to  the  Church,  the  meaning  of  Christianity.  I  do 
not  risk  a  definition;  I  recall  the  facts  and  the 
conclusions. 

The  Church  reads  in  the  New  Testament  that 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  went  about  doing  good,  healing 
the  sick,  raising  the  dead,  using  his  power  over 
nature  in  numerous  miracles;  that  He  was  put 
to  death  and  that  He  appeared  to  His  disciples 
risen  from  the  dead.  The  Church  reads,  again, 
that  Jesus  preached  the  reign  of  God,  at  times  as 


52  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

a  divine  intervention  for  the  salvation  of  men,  at 
times  as  a  kingdom  of  eternal  life  prepared  for  the 
just. 

She  sees  in  the  Gospels  Jesus  revealing  tlimself 
to  His  chosen  disciples  as  the  Messias  promised 
to  the  Jews  and  dying  for  having  claimed  before 
the  assembly  of  His  people  that  He  was  that 
Messias,  Son  of  Man  and  Son  of  God. 

These  disciples,  to  whom  Jesus  consecrated  so 
much  solicitude,  were  charged  by  him  to  continue 
His  work  after  His  death,  with  Peter  at  their 
head;  and,  in  fact,  they  recruited  a  community  of 
believers,  with  Baptism  as  an  initiation,  and  the 
rite  of  the  Supper,  which  united  them  to  Jesus 
Christ;  for  the  Master  had,  on  the  eve  of  His 
death,  changed  the  bread  and  wine  into  His  body 
and  blood. 

From  all  this  the  Church  concludes  that  the 
first  discjples  of  the  Apostles  formed  a  society 
mystically  united  to  Christ  by  means  of  sensible 
signs  which  she  calls  sacraments;  that  another 
bond  of  union  was  the  authority  of  the  Apostles 
from  whom  the  society  received  and  under  whom 
it  guarded  its  faith.  This  faith  was  the  firm 
conviction  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God  and  one  with  the  Father,  and  that  in  His 
death,  unto  which  one  is  associated  by  Baptism 
(the  exterior  profession  of  faith),  was  found  remis- 
sion of  sins.  Christianity  is,  then,  the  work  of 
Christ,  carried  on  by  the  Apostles  under  the  new 
form  demanded  by  His  departure.  It  has  upon 
it  the  divine  seal  of  miracles.  It  has  the  testimony 
of  men  of  §ood  faith. 


THE  EXEGESIS  OT  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH   53 

Such  is,  in  few  words,  the  exegesis  of  the  Church. 
Every  man  remains  free  to  make  or  not  to  make 
the  acts  of  faith  which  would  be  the  legitimate 
conclusion  of  these  premises.  Have  critics  the 
right  to  say  that  the  Church  has  badly  inter- 
preted the  fact,  or  that  Christianity  is  the  result 
of  an  imposture  or  of  a  misunderstanding,  or  that 
the  New  Testament  does  not  contain  any  miracu- 
lous narratives,  or  that  these  narratives  are  myths 
which  arose  long  after  the  time  of  Christ,  or  that 
the  new  religion  resulted  from  a  conflict  of  doc- 
trines which  Jesus  did  not  foresee,  or  that  He 
did  not  even  declare  Himself  the  Messias,  or  that 
the  intervention  of  God  which  He  expected  was 
confined  in  His  mind  to  an  imminent  end  of  the 
world  fo Howled  by  an  absolute  reign  of  God,  or  that 
the  new  religion  is  a  fusion  of  Judaism  and  Paga- 
nism,  or  that  Jesus  never  existed? 

Such  are  the  successive  positions  of  German 
exegesis,  which  we  shall  have  to  examine. 


SECOND  LECTURE. 

THE  FALSE  MYSTICISM  OF  LUTHER. 


We  last  spoke  of  certain  general  characteristics 
of  the  exegesis  of  the  Catholic  Church,  as  applied 
to  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament.  We  saw 
that  this  exegesis  is  that  of  a  society  which  has  the 
same  point  of  view  as  the  early  Christians  in  regard 
to  the  supernatural;  that  its  interpretations  are 
always  the  same,  and  are  the  expression  of  a  hving 
tradition;  that  it  rejects  none  of  the  books  ascribed 
by  antiquity  to  the  Apostles  and  the  disciples  of 
Apostles,  and  interprets  them  as  the  writings  of 
men  who  held  one  common  doctrine  of  faith; 
that  it  never  bases  upon  expressions  which  are 
obscure  or  of  a  paradoxical  turn,  dogmas  contrary 
to  the  teaching  of  their  authors;  finally,  that  it 
represents  the  collective  and  accumulated  wisdom 
of  the  ages. 

Luther's  method  was  totally  different.  The 
only  doctor  of  the  past  centuries  for  whom  he 
professed  any  regard  was  St.  Augustine;  and  he 
studied  him  so  little  that  he  failed  to  understand 
him.  No  one  could  be  more  independent  of  former 
exegetes,  or  more  personal;  his  exegesis  was,  in 
fact,  based  upon  an  individual  state  of  mind. 
Contrary  to  the  dictates  of  common  sense,  he  made 
the   new   doctrine   to   rest   upon   a   few  isolated 


THE    FALSE    MYSTICISM    OF    LUTHER  55 

expressions  of  St.  Paul,  interpreted  in  a  mechani- 
cally proper  literal  sense  which  contradicts  what 
the  Apostle  clearly  teaches  elsewhere.  Once  in 
\  possession  of  this  scriptural  support,  he  had  no 
scruple  about  rejecting  a  book  of  the  Bible  if  it  did 
not  agree  with  his  construction  of  the  Pauline 
doctrine;  at  least,  he  refused  to  be  bound  by  its 
authority.  Nothing,  then,  could  be  less  synthetic 
than  Luther's  method.  As  for  the  living  tradition 
voiced  by  the.Cathohc  Church,  that  too  must  be 
put  aside,  since  the  whole  Church  had  understood 
Christianity  otherwise  than  himself. 

Here,  however,  Luther  stopped.  He  needed  in 
his  doctrinal  system  a  supernatural  authority 
that  could  be  opposed  to  the  authority  of  that 
Church  against  which  he  had  begun  war.  Scripture 
was  to  be  the  firm  foundation  of  the  new  faith; 
upon  the  Word  of  God  he  would  take  his  stand. 
He  continued,  then,  to  admit,  and  he  maintained 
with  his  usual  vigor,  the  supernatural  character 
of  Scripture.  He  seemed,  even,  to  enhance  respect 
for  the  Bible  when  he  proclaimed  it  the  one  rule 
of  faith.  This  new  dogma,  however,  made  it 
necessary  for  Scripture  not  only  to  provide  for  its 
own  defense,  but  to  give  forth  its  message  so 
clearly  as  to  impose  its  authoritative  teaching 
upon  the  conscience  of  all.  Another^  contradictory 
dogma  had  to  be  set  up.  Since  the  Bible  was  not, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  clear  enough  to  meet  the 
Lutheran  demand,  as  soon  as  the  Church's  official 
interpretation  ceased  every  Bible- Christian  began 
to  receive  a  different  teaching  from  the  same  divine 
book;    nothing  was    left    but  to  proclaim  every 


56  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

man's  liberty  to  apply  the  texts  of  Scripture  as  he 
understands  them,  and  the  authority  of  the  Bil^le 
resolved  itself  into  the  individual  authority  of  each 
behever. 

This  is  w^her  things  w^ere  at  the  end  of  the 
Lutheran  controversy.  The  Bible  was  the  author- 
ity in  theory,  the  individual  was  the  authority 
in  practice;  and  the  system  which  presented  this 
glaring  contradiction  was  to  affect  the  whole 
future  of  the  Reformation.  For  Luther  incontest- 
ably  dominates  the  religious  history  of  the  greater 
part  of  Germany.  He  is  the  great  German.  A 
man  who  was  for  a  few  days  chancellor  of  the 
empire,  Dr.  Michaelis,  who  is  neither  a  pastor,  nor 
a  theologian  (although  he  cannot  be  called  a 
statesman  either)  well  summed  up  the  thought 
of  his  people  when  he  exclaimed  :  "  Who  of  us 
cares  about  the  genius  of  Charlemagne?  The 
genius  of  Napoleon  is  dead,  that  of  Frederick  has 
grown  pale.  Alone  the  genius  of  Luther  has 
suffered  no  echpse  after  four  hundred  years, 
because  it  is  of  heavenly  origin  and  shines  with  a 
divine  Hght.  "  ^  Germany,  which  is  at  present 
celebrating  the  fourth  centenary  of  the  Reform- 
ation, is  not  wrong  in  declaring  herself  the 
spiritual  daughter  of  Luther.  Another  star  of 
lesser  magnitude,  but  whose  centenary  Geneva 
has  recalled,  M^^  de  Stael,  had  seen  this  very 
well,  or  had  repeated  it  like  a  faithful  echo  : 
"Luther  is,  of  all  the  great  men  whom  Germany 
has  produced,  the  one  whose  character  was  the 

1.     Cited  from  the  Journal  des  Debats  of  July  28,  1917. 


THE    FALSE    MYSTICISM    OF    LUTHER  57 

most  German.  There  was  something  rude  in  his 
firmness,  something  obstinate  in  his  conviction, 
and  although  he  attacked  certain  abuses  and 
certain  dogmas  as  prejudices,  he  was  not  inspired 
by  philosophical  incredulity  but  by  a  fanaticism  of 
his  own.  "  ^ 

"  A  fanaticism  of  his  own  "  is  a  marvelously  apt 
expression.     It  is  not  only  the  character  of  Luther 
that  is  very  German,   it  is  still  more  his  mind. 
And  this  is  doubtless  why  it  is  so  hard  for  a  French- 
man to  understand  his  success.     For  us,  the  last 
word  on  his  doctrine  has  already  been  spoken  by 
Bossuet.     Very  calm,  because  very  sure  that  he 
was  right,  and  very  desirous  to  set  off  the  reasonable 
points  of  the  Lutheran  professions  of  faith,  because 
he  did  not  despair  of  a  reconcihation,  Bossuet  made 
it  perfectly  evident  that  Luther  constantly  contra- 
dicted himself,  and  that  he  changed  positions  only 
in  order  to  defend  himself,  if  not  through  a  spirit 
of  contradiction  and  to  take  the  reverse  of  what 
was  held  by  the  Church.     Hopeless  of  refuting 
the  History  of  Variations  of  Protestant    Churches 
modern  Protestants  have  been  satisfied  to  reject  it 
altogether,  or  have  endeavoured  to  make  it  serve 
their  cause.     Variation,  some  have  said,  is  the  very 
condition  of  progress  and  of  hfe.     A  doctrine  that 
does  not  vary  is  dead.     It  is  because  it  is  naturally 
capable  of  being  adapted  to  the  progress  of  the 
human  mind  that  Protestantism  is  the  reUgion  of 
the  future. 

You    have    already   answered     that    the    only 

1.     De  VAllemagne,  book  IV,  ch.  ii. 


58  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

leg.'timate  doctrinal  progress  is  the  development 
of  principles  which  are  unchangeable,  because  of 
their  divine  origin;  and  that  this  exists  in  the 
Church.  It  is  likewise  plain  that  people  who 
change  their  principles  have  given  up  the  contention 
that  their  principles  are  divine. 

Bossuet  clearly  understood  and  foretold  that 
Protestant  disregard  of  logic  and  of  principles 
would  end  in  dogmatic  indifference ;  the  "  progress" 
subterfuge  by  no  means  allows  the  Lutheran 
system  to  escape  the  defeat  with  which  the  argu- 
ment of  the  incomparable  controversialist  branded 
it.  You  recall  this  argument.  Let  us  see,  if 
the  doctrine  of  Luther  brings  forth  fruit  which  is 
of  a  nature  to  destroy  his  work,  if  the  so-called 
progress  goes  on  without  rupture  with  the  past, 
if  the  rupture  is  not  even  at  the  very  starting- 
point,  and  we  shall  estimate  the  value  of  the 
man  and  of  his  system  according  to  the  inco- 
herences which  his  system  contains,  according  to 
its  contradiction  with  the  real  meaning  of  that 
Gospel  which  he  had  purposed  to  set  in  a  new 
Hght. 

Bossuet's  argument  has  been  completed  by  an 
Austrian  Dominican,  who  has  gone  back  to  the 
origins  of  the  new  exegesis.  ^  Thanks  to  a  deep 
knowledge  of  the  theology  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and 


1.  Luther  und  Luthertum,  in  der  ersten  Entwichelung, 
quellenmassig  dargestellt,  2nd  ed.,  1904.  Translated  into 
French  by  A.  Paquier,  Luther  et  le  Lutheranisme,  1910-1913. 
For  details  concerning  this  first  and  decisive  exegesis  of 
Luther  see  Revue  Bihlique,  1915,  pp.  456-484,  1916,  pp.  90- 
120.  These  articles  of  Father  Lagrange  on  Luther's  Commen- 


THE    FALSE    MYSTICISM    OF    LUTHER  59 

to  the  publication  of  Luther's  commentary  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Father  Denifle  has  been 
able  to  trace  clearly  the  genesis  of  the  Lutheran 
doctrine,  and  to  add  to  the  demonstration  of  con- 
tradictions an  exposure  of  the  heresiarch's  ignorance 
of  that  scholasticism  which  he  threw  overboard 
with  a  light  heart  and  a  heavy  hand.  This 
indictment  is  crushing.  It  forces  upon  us  the 
question  whether  there  is  not  somewhere  an  idea 
which  we  have  not  grasped,  or  some  event  still 
to  be  brought  to  light,  which  would  make  us  to 
understand  Lutheranism  better.  As  it  is,  we 
cannot  at  all  see  why  Luther  has  had  such  influence. 
It  seems  impossible  that  one  could  mislead  to  such 
an  extent,  and  for  centuries,  minds  which  we 
judged  to  be  hke  our  own. 

But  Heinrich,  an  historian  of  German  literature, 
had  warned  us  before  1870.  He,  too,  said  of 
Luther  :  "  His  error  was,  if  I  may  so  express  myself, 
essentially  German ;  it  succeeded  in  getting  accepted 
because  it  proceeded,  in  a  way  he  did  not  reahze, 
from  certain  tendencies  of  the  national  genius,  and 
gave  them  freer  scope.  " 

"  The  French  have  ordinarily  been  poor  judges 
of  Luther,  because  they  did  not  begin  by  making 
this  indispensable  distinction.  They  have  rather 
judged  him  from  a  general  point  of  view,  as  a 
Christian  or  as  a  theologian;  they  have  called 
attention  to  the  innumerable  contradictions  into 

tary  on  the  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Romans  have  been 
translated  in  a  booklet  called  Luther  on  the  Eve  of  His  Revolt 
by  the  present  translator.  It  is  published  by  the  Cathedral 
Library  Association,  New  York.  (Tr.) 


60  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

which  he  fell;  people  have  counted  those  dogmas 
of  which  he  did  think  at  first,  and  which  he  was 
brought  to  attack  or  defend  without  always 
appearing  concerned  to  remain  faithful  to  his  own 
principles;  finally,  they  have  smiled,  not  without 
reason,  at  the  very  remarkable  method  which,  to 
emancipate  the  human  reason,  begins  by  denying 
liberty.  "  i 

There  is  nothing  in  all  this  to  disconcert  an 
intrepid  German.  Harnack  hkewise  recognizes 
"  the  flat  contradictions  of  his  (Luther's)  theo- 
logy "2 'and  says  that  "  his  conception  of  the 
Church  became  as  ambiguous  as  his  conception 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel.  "  ^  He  even  admits 
the  truth  of  the  charge  of  opportunism  :  "  He 
assumed,  "  he  tells  us,  "  a  commanding  air  in 
theology,  as  a  child  does  in  the  home,  summoning 
forth  old  and  new  and  always  having  in  view 
merely  the  nearest  practical  end.  "  * 

Nevertheless,  there  must  be  an  innermost  center 
in  this  new  rehgion,  in  this  German  piety  of  which 
Germany  is  so  proud  :  "  Considered  as  a  religion,  " 
says  Harnack,  "  the  church  (of  Luther)  offered 
before  all  an  immense  reduction,  an  emancipating 
simplification.  This  reduction  meant  nothing  less 
than  the  restoration  of  religion  :  seeking  and 
finding  God.  "  ^    And  the  Berhn  professor  formu- 

1.  Histoire  de  la  litterature  allemande,   I,  p.   429. 

2.  History  of  Dogma,  English  Translation,  Boston  1900. 
Vol.  VII,  p.  177. 

3.  Ihid.,  pp.  231  f. 

4.  Ibid.,  pp.  233  f. 

5.  In  Denifle-Paquier,  Luther  et  le  Lutheranisme, 
IV.  Apend'x,  p.   75.   Cf.  History  of  Dogma,  VII,  p.   183. 


THE    FALSE    MYSTICISM    OF    LUTHER  61 

lates  still  more  explicitly  the  concept  of  the  new 
piety  :  "  The  living  faith  in  a  God  who,  through 
Christ,  cries  out  to  the  poor  soul,  I  am  thy  salva- 
tion, the  firm  assurance  that  God  is  the  Being 
on  whom  man  may  rest  :  such  is  Luther's  message 
to  Christendom.  "  ^ 

It  is  perhaps  all  that  modern  German  Christen- 
dom has  preserved  of  Luther's  message.  If  the 
formula  is  vague,  —  to  such  an  extent  that  we 
could  agree  with  it,  —  it  at  least  suggests  to  us 
what  is  the  soul  of  the  Lutheran  system.  Accord- 
ing to  Luther,  the  meaning  of  Christianity  is  the 
certitude  of  salvation  which  each  soul  embraces 
by  faith  in  that  righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ  which 
is  imputed  to  it.  Every  man  is  a  sinner  and 
remains  a  sinner  whatever  he  may  do;  but  if  he 
has  a  firm  confidence  that  God  forgives  him,  he 
bcQomes  righteous  with  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  which  supphes  for  that  which  he  cannot 
have. 

You  will  grant  that  there  is  here  a  theory  of 
mystic  appearance;  I  shall  endeavor  to  show 
you  that  it  is  not  the  mysticism  of  St.  Paul.  After 
that  we  shall  again  put  ourselves,  with  more 
chance  of  arriving  at  a  solution,  the  troubling 
question  concerning  the  success  of  Luther. 

It  seems  strange  to  you  that  such  a  subtle 
thought,  in  appearance  of  so  little  bearing  on 
practical  life,  should  be  the  main  factor  in  a  for- 
midable shaking  of  consciences  and  in  the  per- 
sistence  of  Lutheranism.     Do  not  fear   to  enter, 

2.     In   Demfle-Paquier,   IV,  p.   78. 


62  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

at  this  point,  into  a  study  of  pure  theology.  After 
all,  we  are  dealing  with  matters  which  aflect  the 
soul,  and  its  destiny;  and  I  shall  try  to  avoid 
discussions  of  too  technical  a  nature. 


*  * 


To  prove  that  St.  Paul  was  not  a  Lutheran,  I 
take  my  stand  at  once  in  the  very  center  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Apostle.  He  describes,  in  a  well- 
known  text,  the  meaning  of  the  Gospel,  'that  is  to 
say,  of  Christianity  :  "  It  is  the  power  of  God  unto 
Salvation  to  every  one  that  beheveth,  to  the  Jew 
first,  and  to  the  Greek.  For  in  it  is  revealed  the 
justice  of  God,  going  from  faith  unto  faith.  "  ^ 
Luther  at  first  saw  in  these  words  a  threat  to  his 
distressed  soul;  he  was  frightened  at  the  thought 
of  God's  justice.  He  was  reassured  only  when  he 
understood  that  the  text  refers  not  to  the  justice 
which  punishes,  but  to  the  grace  which  pardons. 
The  discovery  would  have  been  of  importance,  if, 
as  the  Augustinian  monk  wrote,  "  all  the  masters, 
with  the  sole  exception  of  St.  Augustine,  have 
here  explained  the  justice  of  God  in  the  sense  of 
the  wrath  of  God.  "  But  another  monk.  Father 
Denifle,  took  the  trouble  to  read  and  reproduce 
on  this  point  all  the  Latin  authors  he  could  find, 
printed  or  in  manuscript.  There,  are  sixty-six; 
all  agree  with  St.  Augustine.  The  novelty  was 
not,  then,  as  Luther,  in  his  ignorance  of  the  masters, 
imagined,   in   declaring  that   the  justice   of   God 

1.     Rom.  I,  16  f. 


THE    FALSE    MYSTICI«M    OF    LUTHER  63 

which  pardons  is  the  meaning  of  Christianity,  but 
in  making  of  that  justice  something  exterior  to  us, 
whereas,  according  to  St.  Paul,  it  is  given  to  us 
gratuitously,  to  abide  within  the  soul,  when  we 
embrace  it  by  faith.  Faith,  the  great  Apostle 
taught,  puts  the  Christian  in  possession  of  the 
divine  power  which  had  been  placed  at  the  service 
of  the  world  by  the  passion  and  death  of  Jesus. 

This  grace  w^hich  is  given  in  Jesus  Christ  is 
absolutely  necessary,  St.  Paul  affirmed,  to  all 
mankind.  It  is  only  by  applying  to  themselves 
the  fruit  of  a  death  endured  in  an  obscure  corner 
of  the  Roman  Empire  that  men  may  be  saved. 
How  was  this  fruit  to  be  made  accessible  to  them? 
Pagans  were,  in  practice,  little  concerned  about 
morals  when  St.  Paul  wote,  but  they  still  had 
a  faint  hght  in  their  conscience,  the  natural  law; 
it  was  necessary  to  appeal  to  their  conscience  in 
order  to  stir  it  up  to  seek  salvation.  It  might 
respond  if  salvation  were  proposed  to  them  as 
something  offered  by  God,  with  unquestionable 
signs.  Those  who  were  moved  to  seek  salvation 
w^ould  recognize  that  they  were  sinners,  and  would 
have  recourse  to  the  grace  of  God.  But  the 
situation  of  the  Jews,  apparently  much  more 
favorable,  was  in  reality  more  disquieting.  Their 
law  gave  them  a  more  clear-cut  appreciation  of 
good  and  evil,  inculcating  strongly  a  horror  of 
sin;  and,  as  far  as  our  information  allows  us  to 
judge,  their  moral  condition  was  indeed  much 
superior  to  that  of  the  Gentiles,  at  least  in  sexual 
matters.  But  they  doubtless  exaggerated  this 
superiority,  and,  to  the  exasperation  of  St.  Paul, 


64  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

they  attributed  the  glory  to  themselves.  They 
refused  to  confess  their  natural  weakness.  Every 
truly  rehgious  soul  trembles  before  God  because 
it  is  insufficiently  pure  and  incapable  of  raising 
itself  up  with  its  own  powers,  and  implores  the 
help  of  God.  The  Jews  had  not  this  sentiment. 
In  his  uneasiness  and  his  indignation  St.  Paul 
strikes  very  hard  at  the  confidence  of  his  fellow 
countryman  in  their  own  works,  which  are,  after 
all,  not  so  very  good;  he  declares  them  unable  to 
resist  evil  with  the  powers  of  reason  alone,  even 
when  it  is  illumined  by  the  law  of  Moses;  and  he 
adjures  Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles  to  give  themselves 
up  to  the  grace  of  God  which  is  offered  in  Jesus 
Christ. 

This  rehance  on  the  Savior  was  all  the  more 
necessary  because  man  was  no  longer  clothed  with 
the  dignity  which  the  Creator  had  at  first  conferred 
upon  him.  By  Adam's  fault  mankind  was  deprived 
of  the  original  grace  of  innocence.  Compared  to 
the  situation  of  man  before  the  fall,  this  situation 
is  a  state  of  sin.  According  to  the  instinct  of  the 
men  of  his  race,  Paul  personifies  this  sin,  and,  in 
the  same  way,  he  personifies  as  "  flesh  "  all  those 
tendencies  of  man  which  set  themselves  in  op- 
position to  the  empire  of  God  and  to  what  is  good. 
Now  Jesus  Christ  is  a  new  Adam,  more  powerful 
to  help  humanity  than  the  first  Adam  was  to  do  it 
harm.  He  has  merited  grace  for  us;  but,  as  He  is 
its  source,  we  can  have  access  to  it  only  by  uniting 
ourselves  to  Him  by  faith. 

St.  Paul's  act  of  faith,  the  exterior  profession  of 
which  is  baptism,  is  an  act  of  the  intelHgence  which 


THE    FALSE    MYSTICISM    OF    LUTHER  65 

recognizes  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  the  Messias  of  the 
Jews  and  as  the  Son  of  God,  as  the  Savior  and 
Redeenaer  of  men,  and  it  is  at  the  same  time  the 
adhesion  of  the  whole  soul  to  the  salvation  proposed 
by  God.  ^ 

And  here  there  intervenes  the  mystical  element 
Mystical  (another  Greek  word  hke  exegesis)  means 
remote    from    or    obscure    to    the    human    mind 
requirmg  a  special  initiation  for  its  apprehension' 
It  is  said  of  a  thing  which  is  not  revealed  to  the 
pubhc,  but  rather  kept  secret  from  the  uninitiate 
It  is  now,  ordinarily,  reserved  to  the  relations  of 
the    soul    with    God,    relations    which,    by    their 
very  nature,  elude  a  very  exphcit  objective  analysis 
And  as  all  our  aspirations  to  God  tend  to  draw  us 
nearer  to  Him,  even  to  unite  us  to  Him,  mysticism 
has  essentially  for  its  object  divine  union,  such  as 
It  can  exist  here  below.     To  know  God  is  alreadv 
to  unite  one's  self  with  Him;  to  love  Him  is  better 
to  unite  one's  self  with  Him.     But  besides  this 
knowledge   and   this   love,   which    still   allow   of 
distance  between  the  being  which  is  loved  and 
the  lovmg  soul,  there  is  something  hke  a  contact 
with  God,  the  possibihty  of  which  between  spirits 
no  one  has  a  right  to  deny.     The  Cathohc  Church 
has  followed  in  this  matter  the  i^ia  media  between 
the  extremists  who  would  refuse  to  admit  any 
union  at  all,  as  tending  to  confuse  the  natures  of 
God  and  man,  and  the  other  extremists  who  admit 
such  a  total  union  as  to  merge  the  human  person- 
ahty  mto  the  All  of  God.     Keeping  clear  both  of 
Deism  and  Pantheism,  the  Church  aspires  after  a 
union  which  is  perfectly  real,  so  real  that  it  wiU  be      - 


66  THE    MEANIIifG    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

fruitful  by  the  action  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in 
us. 

This  is  what  St.  Paul  saw  in  the  act  of  faith 
and  in  Baptism.  The  sinner,  united  to  the  death 
of  Jesus  Christ,  is  also  united  to  His  divine  life. 
He  begins,  then,  to  live  anew.  His  works  are  no 
longer  only  his  own ;  they  are  also  the  works  of  the 
grace  of  Jesus  Christ  who  lives  in  him.  Instead  of 
boasting  of  his  justice,  he  will  henceforth  confess 
that  his  justice  is  that  of  Christ.  But  he  can  lose 
this  justice.  For,  if  sin  has  disappeared  and  if  the 
Christian  is  washed,  purified,  justified,  the  "  flesh  " 
remains,  that  is  to  say,  the  Christian  still  has 
tendencies  which  refuse  to  submit  to  the  Spirit  of 
Christ.  The  fight  begins  once  more,  but  in  condi- 
tions which  make  victory  certain,  if  only  the 
Christian  fights  with  the  arms  of  light.  Far  from 
being  diminished,  the  person  of  man  is  magnified 
by  association  with  the  power  of  the  Gospel. 
This  power  of  the  Gospel  is  spoken  of  when  St.  Paul 
speaks  of  the  Spirit  of  God  which  acts  in  us;  it  is 
likewise  in  his  mind  when  he  speaks  of  a  spirit 
which  has  become  our  own  and  which  is  a  sort 
of  enlightened  and  deified  reason;  it  is  what  the 
Church  calls  grace  or  charity,  grace  when  she 
conceives  it  as  added  to  our  nature,  charity  when 
she  conceives  it  as  the  virtue  which  incHnes  our 
will  towards  God,  towards  moral  duty,  towards 
our  brethren. 

After  this  brief  statement  of  St.  Paul's  teaching 
about  union  with  God,  let  us  now  seek  out  the 
Augustinian  monk  in  his  cell.  Luther  was  thirty- 
three  years  old.     His  name  was  not  yet  famous, 


THE    FALSE    MYSTICISM    OF    LUTHER  67 

but  already  he  occupied  an  important  position  in 
his  order;  and  while  giving  himself  up  to  preaching 
and  to  the  teaching  of  Sacred  Scripture,  he  took  a 
passionate  interest  in  the  disquieting  symptoms 
presented  by  the  situation  of  the  Church.  There  is 
no  question  but  that  it  was  from  his  powerful 
personality  that  the  new  system  issued.  Was  it 
the  conclusion  of  his  studies,  or  the  fruit  of  his  per- 
sonal experience? 

He  has  himself  excluded  the  hypothesis  of  mere 
study  of  texts.  According  to  his  own  view  of  the 
matter,  it  was,  indeed,  from  the  Word  of  God  that 
Hght  came  to  him ;  but  the  prodigious  effect  of  this 
new  hght  was  due  to  the  fact  that  in  it  he  recog- 
nized a  view  which  he  had  already  conceived  as  a 
result  of  the  prostration  in  which  he  found  himself 
and  which  he  thus  describes  :  "  Notwithstanding 
the  irreproachable  character  of  my  hfe  as  a  monk, 
I  felt  myself  a  sinner  before  God,  and  my  conscience 
was  uneasy.  Were  the  satisfactions  which  I 
offered  to  God  sufficient  to  appease  him?  I  had 
no  certitude  of  it.  So  I  did  not  love  this  just  and 
avenging  God.  My  conscience  was  troubled  and 
I  ceaselessly  knocked  at  that  passage  of  St.  Paul, 
(Rom.  I,  17),  in  the  ardent  desire  to  know  what 
it  meant.  " 

It  is  in  this  disposition  that  he  understood  all  at 
once  (what  all  commentators  had  always  taught) 
that  the  justice  of  God,  which  is  the  whole  power 
of  Christianity,  is  not  the  justice  which  punishes, 
but  the  justice  which  pardons.  "  Immediately,  " 
he  says,  "  I  felt  that  I  was  born  again.  It  seemed 
to  me  that  the  door  of  Paradise  opened  wide  before 


68  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

me.  Henceforth  all  Scripture  took  on  a  new  aspect 
in  my  eyes.  "  ^ 

This  remarkable  result  was  not  due  merely  to 
the  fact  that,  with  all  earher  commentators,  he 
perceived  that  St.  Paul,  in  Romans  i,  17,  was  not 
speaking  of  an  avenging  justice;  it  was  due  to  a 
new  sense  ascribed  to  the  justice  which  pardons. 
Scripture  changes  its  aspect  for  him  when  he 
thinks  he  finds  in  it  the  doctrine  which  was  already 
his.  So  long  as  it  resists  him,  he  is  tortured.  The 
day  he  sees  in  it  a  soothing  assurance  for  his  soul 
in  anguish,  Scripture  becomes  not  only  a  source  of 
peace  but  a  fulcrum  with  which  he  can  move  the 
world.  Mr.  Jundt  is  right,  consequently,  in 
regarding  as  the  basis  of  the  new  system  what 
Protestants  call  the  moral  experiences  of  Luther  : 
*'  This  system  rests  on  the  data  of  the  individual 
experience  of  the  believer,  confirmed  and  completed 
by  the  testimony  of  Sacred  Scripture,  "  ^  such, 
that  is  to  say,  as  Luther  understood  it. 

What  was,  then,  this  experience,  and  how  did 
the  conclusion  already  drawn  by  Luther  come  to 
be  confirmed  by  the  authority  of  St.  Paul? 

Regarding  Luther's  state  of  soul  one  may  make 
two  hypotheses,  that  of  a  fall  into  mortal  sin  and 
that  of  scrupules. 

According  to  Father  Denifle,  Luther,  who  had 
entered  the  cloister  with  a  sincere  desire  to  sanctify 
himself,  succumbed  to  sin.     Concupiscence  (whe- 


1.  Jundt,    Le   developpement   de   la   pensee   religieuse    de 
Luther  jusquen   1517,   Paris,    1906,   p.    71. 

2.  Jundt,  p.   156. 


THE    FALSE    MYSTICISM    OF    LUTHER  69 

ther  that  of  pride  or  another  kind)  was  stronger 
than  he ;  and  rather  than  confess  himself  vanquished 
through  any  fault  of  his  own,  the  proud  monk 
persuaded  himself  that  his  defeat  was  inevitable 
and  necessary.  This  affirmation  of  the  Austrian 
Dominican  has  been  contested  by  a  German  Jesuit, 
Father  Grisar.  ^  It  is  not  a  rash  judgment;  it  is 
supported  by  indications  which  are  sufficiently 
serious.  But  God  alone  knows  how  the  matter 
stood,  as  the  Arabs  say;  God  alone  is  judge,  as 
Christians  say. 

Let  us  then  suppose  that  Luther,  as  he  always 
maintained,  was  only  tormented  by  scrupules ;  that 
after  having  aimed  at  an  excessively  lofty  holiness 
and  resolved  to  be  a  saint,  he  could  not  stand 
the  troublesome  neighborhood  of  concupiscence. 
We  may  put  aside  the  hypothesis  that  he  gave 
sinful  consent  to  evil  tendencies,  even  though  we 
must  refuse  to  beheve  all  t|he  good  things  which  he 
says  of  himself.  For  Luther  dehghted  in  describ- 
ing his  aims  in  regard  to  holiness,  and  as  he  always 
lacked  moderation  and  tact,  he  draws  what  is 
evidently  an  exaggerated  picture  of  his  aspirations 
and  achievements.  Did  he  really,  at  this  period, 
*'  allow  himself  to  be  admired  as  a  being  capable 
of  miracles,  able  likewise  to  make  but  one  mouthful 
of  death  and  the  devil  ?  "  2  Qne  may  doubt  it; 
his  correspondence  at  this  date  is  not  favorable  to 
the  view  that  he  tells  the  truth  about  his  extraordin- 
ary  mortifications,  for   instance.     But    certain  it 

1.  Luther,  by   Hermann  Grisar,   S.  J.,   translated  into 
En(n;lish.by  E.  M.  Lamond,  Herder,  1913,  Vol.  I,  pp.  110  IT. 

2.  JUNDT.    D.    45. 


70  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

is  that  he  was  under  an  illusion  in  regard  to  the 
rapid  transformation  which  he  expected  of  the 
rehgious  hfe  and  of  his  own  efforts.  The  erudite 
Father  Denifle  confirms  the  view  that  he  was  under 
such  an  illusion,  and.  explains  the  fact.  The 
doctrine  of  St.  Thomas  was  then  almost  forgotten 
in  Germany.  The  nominahsts,  with  Occam  at 
their  head,  had  rather  confused  notions  about  grace 
and  they  overestimated  the  powers  of  nature. 
This  is  the  degenerated  scholasticism  that  Luther 
learned.  He  was  made  to  hope  for  too  much;  he 
fancied  concupiscence  would  soon  be  conquered. 
But  it  remained,  even  after  he  had  just  been  at 
confession,  to  fill  him  with  confusion  and  almost 
with  despair. 

*'  When  I  v/as  a  monk,  "  he  will  say  later  on,  "  I 
thought  my  salvation  lost,  if  I  experienced  some 
concupiscence  of  the  flesh,  that  is  to  say,  a  bad 
impression  of  sensual  attraction,  of  anger,  of  envy 
towards  a  brother.  I  tried  various  means;  I  went 
to  confession  every  day.  But  I  made  no  progress, 
for  the  concupiscence  of  the  flesh  ever  made  itself 
felt  again.  I  could  not,  then,  acquire  any  calmness, 
and  perpetually  I  was  tortured  by  those  thoughts  : 
I  have  committed  such  or  such  a  sin,  or.  Thou  art  a 
prey  to  anger,  to  impatience,  etc.  It  is,  then,  in 
vain  that  thou  hast  entered  into  a  holy  order, 
and  all  thy  good  works  are  useless.  "  ^ 

There  is  nothing  in  this  experience  but  what  is 
very  ordinary,  alas !  What  is  strange  is  that 
Luther  should  have  confused  concupiscence  and 

1.     Denifle-Paquier,  II,   389,  note  2. 


THE    FALSE    MYSTICISM    OF    LUTHER  71 

sin.  In  theory  he  knew  the  difference;  he  must 
have  been  often  told  that  concupiscence  cannot 
stain  the  soul  so  long  as  the  will  does  not  consent. 

But  he  was  surprised  at  this  persistence  of 
concupiscence  in  so  holy  a  state,  attacking  a  soul 
that  wished  to  be  so  holy.  He  finally  understood 
that  it  would  last  as  long  as  life  (as  is  the  case  with 
every  one)  and  he  concluded  that  it  was  invincible. 
Invincible,  in  the  sense  of  never  quelled,  that  might 
be  understood.  But  he  meets  a  text  :  "  Thou 
shalt  not  covet.  "  The  law  forbids  concupiscence  ! 
To  experience  it  is,  consequently,  to  commit  sin. 
Concupiscence  is,  then,  nothing  else  than  sin, 
namely,  original  sin,  continuing  its  life  in  baptized 
Christians,  even  if  they  are  monks  or  in  sacred 
orders. 

The  reaction,  brutal,  as  one  would  have  expected, 
exaggerated  (that  too  was  characteristic),  the 
confusion  that  resulted,  the  anger  against  his 
teachers,  all  this  ferments  and  boils  in  a  passionate 
invective  against  those  "  pigs  of  theologians.  " 
Through  a  delicate  feehng  for  the  fitting,  the  word 
is  in  German  (Sawtheologen)  in  the  Latin  com- 
mentary on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  written  in 
the  year  1515,  in  the  cloister  of  Wittenberg.  Luther 
bids  these  theologians  reflect  upon  themselves,  for 
*'  their  own  experience  at  least  will  show  them  the 
extreme  foolishness  of  their  opinion,  will  fill  them 
with  shame"  and  remorse.  For,  whether  they  will 
or  not,  they  experience  in  themselves  evil  desires. 
Then  I  say.  Well !  Please  go  ahead  !  Be  men  ! 
Put  forth  all  your  powers  to  keep  these  evil  desires 
out  of  you.     Try,  as  you  say,  with  all  your  strength 


72  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

to  love  God  naturally,  without  grace.  If  you  are 
without  concupiscence,  we  believe  you.  But  if 
you  live  with  it  and  in  it,  already  you  fail  to 
accomphsh  the  law.  For  the  law  says,  '  Thou 
shalt  not  covet,  but  thou  shalt  love  God.  '"  ^ 

Here  we  find  ourselves,  already,  in  presence  of 
the  chaos  from  which  Luther  will  never  emerge. 

Concupiscence  presents  itself  to  him  as  a  formid- 
able power;  it  is  the  Lernaean  hydra.  And  he  is 
right.  But  he  wrongly  imagined  that  it  is  forbidden 
by  the  law,  regarded  as  sin  by  God.  He  had 
suffered  so  cruelly  because  he  could  not  be  a  saint; 
now  he  is  condemned  to  live  in  sin.  Hence  irrita- 
tion, bitterness  and  anguish.  It  is  now  that  light 
shines  in  the  darkness.  Salvation  issues  from 
despair.  It  suffices  to  renounce  one's  own  justice 
and  to  shield  oneself  from  wrath  behind  the  justice 
of  Christ.  What  is  the  doctrine  of  St.  Paul  but 
the  condemnation  of  one's  own  justice  and  the 
revelation  of  the  justice  of  Christ? 

There  is,  however,  a  difference !  Let  learned 
Germany  pardon  us,  but  it  must  be  said  (and  it  is 
really  not  unknown)  that  Luther,  the  exegete,  had 
no  historical  sense.  The  monk  does  not  take  into 
account  the  historical  situation  and  its  bearing  on 
the  meaning  of  St.  Paul's  words.  In  the  concrete 
case  with  which  the  Apostle  was  dealing,  all  was 
quite  simple.  The  Jews,  thinking  their  own  justice 
sufficient,  would  not  have  recourse  to  the  justice 
of  Christ.  Those,  on  the  other  hand,  who  were 
being  baptized,  implored  it  and  received  it;  thereby 

1.     FiCKER,  Lutkers  Vorlesung  fiber  den  Rdfnerbrief,  p.  110 


THE    FALSE    MYSTICISM    OF    LUTHER  73 

sin  was  effaced,  and  they  became  just.  Now 
Luther  (at  least  after  he  had  received  absolution) 
was  in  the  second  class,  of  those  who  had  their  sins 
forgiven,  not  in  the  class  of  the  Jews  who  refused 
to  beheve.  If  he  beheved  that  his  sin  was  not 
forgiven,  he  renounced  a  justice  which  would  have 
been  at  the  same  time  his  o^vn  and  that  of  Christ. 
He  refused  the  gift  of  God,  and  nevertheless  he 
appealed  to  the  justice  of  Christ,  on  condition  that 
it  should  remain  external.  His  sin  persisted,  and 
he  boasted  of  it;  but  it  was  covered.  There  was 
here  matter  for  contradictions  which  were  seductive 
for  one  of  his  pecuhar  frame  of  mind  :  he  felt  at 
once  good  and  bad,  just  and  unjust,  a  man  in  sin 
and  a  man  received  into  God's  grace.  God  imputes 
to  the  sinner  the  justice  of  Christ,  without  com- 
municating it  to  him.  Consequently  he  may  sink 
into  his  nothingness,  realize  v^th  complacency  his 
lowhness,  humble  himself  before  God  as  no  one  -else 
was  able  to  do.  Precious  humility,  inaccessible 
to  those  who  consider  themselves  just !  By  giving 
up  once  for  all  that  justice  the  very  name  of  which 
*'  disgusts  him,  "  he  has  found  peace;  for  the 
justice  of  Christ  is  an  unshakable  foundation.  It 
cannot  fail  one  who  beheves  himself,  with  confident 
faith,   assured   of  obtaining  salvation. 

Gentlemen,  I  should  not  be  surprised  that  you 
found  this  distinction  between  imputed  justice 
and  communicated  justice  a  subtlety  of  secondary 
importance.  If  the  merits  of  Christ  are  apphed 
to  us,  what  matters  it,  it  may  be  asked,  whether  it 
be  by  giving  us  His  justice  or  by  taking  His  justice 
into  account,  instead  of  judging  us  what  we  are? 


74  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

See,  however,  the  consequences.  If  concupis- 
cence is  invincible,  it  is  useless  to  try  to  withstand 
it.  Whether  we  will  or  not  we  are  established  in 
sin,  and,  far  from  interfering  with  our  salvation,  it 
will  rather  lead  us  into  a  salutary  humility;  we 
will  only  be  the  more  inclined  to  cover  ourselves 
with  the  grace  of  Christ.  Luther,  for  once,  was 
perfectly  logical  in  writing  to  Melancton  the 
famous  -pecca  fortiter,  "  sin  with  intrepidity.  " 
The  faith  that  will  cover  more  sin  is  but  the  more 
heroic.  Again,  even  more  useless  than  the  fight 
against  sin,  is  striving  after  good  works.  This 
effort  to  do  good  becomes  even  dangerous.  It  is 
based  on  the  error  that  one's  own  justice  is  some- 
thing, that  it  may  be  increased ;  and  one  might  fall 
into  the  abomination  of  regarding  it  as  a  means  of 
obtaining  eternal  salvation.  To  merit  life  eternal 
by  works  of  law !  What  would  Paul  say  of  this 
blasphemy ! 

Moreover,  not  only  are  moral  actions  discredited, 
but  the  will  itself  is  declared  so  imperfect  that  it 
cannot  avoid  evil.  For  man,  since  he  became  a 
sinner,  that  is,  since  the  original  sin,  is  deprived  of 
free  will;  his  nature  is  irremediably  corrupted,  and 
baptism  changes  nothing  in  it. 

As  you  see,  a  divergency  which  is  hardly  notice- 
able at  the  starting-point,  leads  to'  the  wreck  of 
morals.  The  effects  answered  to  the  cause  so 
strikingly  and  rapidly,  that  Luther  disclaimed 
responsibility  with  all  his  energy.  He  hastened, 
this  time  in  a  praiseworthy  manner,  to  contradict 
himself.  We  do  not  think  of  reproaching  Luther- 
anism  with  moral  indifference;  only  it  would  be 


THE    FALSE    MYSTICISM    OF    LUTHER  75 

desirable  that  Lutherans  understood  the  inconsist- 
ency. But  we  shall  not  labor  the  point;  for  our 
theme  obhges  us  rather  to  examine  by  what  artifice 
Luther  was  able  to  attribute  to  St.  Paul  a  doctrine 
so  contrary  to  that  which  he  clearly  taught. 

It  is  here  that  I  need  all  your  attention.-  Recall 
to  mind  that  veritable  triumphal  chant  which 
the  Apostle  entoned  to  celebrate  the  victory  of  the 
baptized  person,  who  is  washed  in  the  blood  of 
Christ,  purified,  and  living  with  a  divine  life.  ^ 
We  should  be  inclined  to  say  that  he  exaggerated 
the  change  wrought  by  baptism.  All  this  no  longer 
counts  for  Luther.  He  clings  to  a  few  words;  he 
will  not  get  away  from  them;  they  cut  off  for  him 
the  landscape  opened  up  by  the  act  of  faith.  For 
he  has  read  in  St.  Paul,  "  It  is  not  I  who  do  it,  " 
that  is  evil,  "  it  is  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me.  "  This 
is  clear.  Sin  dwells  in  us,  then.  It  does  indeed ! 
but  vv^hen?  Everybody  knows,  now,  that  St.  Paul 
was  speaking  of  the  time  when  man  has  not  yet 
embraced  Christianity,  when  his  reason  struggles 
against  the  attraction  of  sin,  without  being  able  to 
find  any  help  in  the  law  of  Moses.  It  is  true  that 
St.  Augustine  thought  that  the  combat  described 
by  the  Apostle  was  that  which  goes  on  in  the 
baptized  Christian ;  an  error  of  interpretation  which 
did  not  drag  him  into  any  doctrinal  error.  But 
Luther  wanted  his  company;  by  a  shp  oi  memory 
or  by  perpetrating  a  wilful  falsification,  he  makes 
him  say  that  concupiscence  is  sin. 

But  this  first  indication  must  be  supported.     In 

1.     Rom.  V,  1-11;  viii,  31-39. 


76  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

the  same  Epistle  to  the  Remans,  St.  Paul  cites  the 
Psalmist  :  "  Blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities  are 
forgiven,  and  whose  sins  are  covered;  blessed  the 
man  to  whom  the  Lord  would  not  impute  sin.  "  ^ 
These  "  covered  sins  "  are  a  treasure-trove  for 
Luther.  God,  he  explains,  covers  them  in  order 
not  to  see  them;  they  still  exist,  then,  in  man. 
Note  that  this  term  "  covered  "  comes  from  a 
false  interpretation  of  the  Greek  translators.  The 
French  Protestant  Bible  rightly  translates,  "  sins 
pardoned.  "  And  Luther  was  to  translate  the 
Bible  from  Hebrew  into  German !  He  should, 
then,  have  noticed  this  mistake.  But,  it  may  be 
asked,  did  not  Paul  assume  responsibility  for  this 
expression?  No,  for  in  this  context  the  sins  that 
are  covered  are  synonymous  with  iniquities  which 
are  forgiven.  Paul  would  have  judged  monstrous 
this  juridical  fiction,  or  rather,  comedy,  of  Almighty 
God  covering  sin  in  order  not  to  see  it.  But 
Luther  delights  in  these  too  Hteral  explanations. 
A  new  proof  that  sin  remains  after  the  pardon  he 
finds  in  the  other  psalm  which  says  :  "  I  removed 
his  shoulder  from  the  burden.  "  ^  Consequently, 
Luther  solemnly  argues,  the  burden  remains,  but 
the  sh6ulder  is  no  longer  burdened  with  it,  and 
made  responsible  for  it,  because  God  does  not 
impute  sin  to  the  behever,  though  he  remains  a 
sinner. 

And,  lo  1  by  a  happy  coincidence,  alongside  of 
the  sin  which  is  not  imputed,  Paul  knows  of  a 


1.  Rom.  IV,  7  f. ;  Ps.  xxxi  (xxxii),  1-2. 

2.  FiCKER,   p.   108.   Ps.   LXXX,   6. 


THE    FALSE    MYSTICISM    OF    LUTHER  77 

justice  which  is  imputed.     It  is  that  of  Abraham, 
of  whom  Genesis  says  :  "  Abraham  beheved  God, 
and  it  was  reckoned  unto  him  for  justice.  "  ^     It 
was  reckoned  unto  him;  consequently  God  gave 
good  measure.     He  accepted  the  faith  of  Abraham 
at  more  than  its  value,  for  justice  !     Consequently, 
Luther    concludes,    Abraham    was    agreeable    to 
God  by  faith  alone,   without  possessing  justice. 
The  Augustinian  monk  did  not  grasp  the  meaning 
of  Genesis,  which  simply  meant  to  tell  us  how 
agreeable   to   God  was  Abraham.     He   does  not 
notice,  either,  that  the  Apostle  was  trying  to  take 
a  weapon   from   the   Jews   by   proving  to   them 
with   a   text   received   by   them   that   Abraham, 
their  father,  found  favor  with  God  by  faith,  like 
the  Christians,  before  having  recourse  to  circum- 
cision.    Above  all  he  refuses  to  hear   the   enthu- 
siastic words  of  the  Apostle  on  the  gift  of  divine 
life  which  follows  the  act  of  faith  and  accompanies 
justification.     No,   he   concentrates  his  attention 
on  an  isolated  expression  and  draws  from  it  a  whole 
system.     His  "  imputed  justice  "  is,  he  claims, 
safer  than  the  justice  hitherto  known.     This  being 
at  the  same  time  the  justice  of  God  and  the  justice 
of  man,  can  be  lost  by  man.    But  the  justice  of 
Christ    cannot    be    lost,    since    one    never    really 
possesses    it.     Its    imputation    can    always    be 
obtained   by  faith,   that  is,   by  firm  confidence. 
This  faith-confidence  is  the  necessary,  but  sufficient 
means   of  justification  and  salvation.     No   work 
is  required ;  no  work  is  of  any  value  for  salvation. 

1.     Rom.  IV,  3  fl". 


78  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

What!  would  charity  be  useless  for  salvation? 
Yes,  for  it  too  is  a  work,  being  the  fulfilment  of 
a  commandment.  For  it  is  written,  "  Thou  shalt 
love  the  Lord  thy  God.  "  Thus  is  completed  the 
despoiling  of  the  sinful  soul;  it  no  longer  awaits 
solvation  but  from  the  Lord.  It  must  be  granted 
that  Luther  has  written  touching  things  on  this 
theme  of  reliance  on  God  and  that  his  words  have 
consoled  many. 

It  is  too  bad  that  this  comfort  rests,  again,  upon 
a  misunderstanding.  For  if  Paul  declared  the  law 
of  Moses  abrogated,  it  was  as  a  provisional  rehgious 
system,  it  was  not  as  the  formulation  of  the 
very  principle  of  all  religion,  the  love  of  God  and 
neighbor.  St.  Paul  himself  had  proclaimed  a 
simple  and  emancipating  principle  :  the  whole 
law  is  included  in  this  principle  :  "  Thou  shalt 
love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,  "  ^  which  is  properly 
the  law  of  Christ. 

Reduced  as  it  is,  the  piety  of  Luther  has  nothing 
in  common  with  what  people  used  to  call  free- 
thought,  and  preferably  to-day  the  enfranchisement 
of  reason. 

Rarely  has  reason  been  so  ill-treated;  and  her 
interference  in  spiritual  and  divine  things  was 
never  so  abusively  resented.  I  shall  not  repeat 
this  abuse.  Let  us  take  note  only  of  what  caused 
the  outbreak  against  reason.  "  Reason  is  contrary 
to  faith.  It  is  only  for  God  to  give  faith,  against 
nature  and  against  reason,  in  a  word,  to  make  us 
believe.  "  ^    And  not  only  did  Luther  crush  reason 

1.     Gal.  V,   14. 

2      Denifle-Paquier,  III,  275. 


THE    FALSE    MYSTICISM    OF    LUTHER  79 

by  faith;  lie  would  have  reason  annihilate  herself. 
'He  sees  no  difficulty  in  a  thing's  being  and  not 
being  at  the  same  time.  Every  normal  exercise 
of  reason  is  for  him  childishness  :  "  Let  people 
leave  aside  those  trifles  and  those  human  argu- 
ments which  say,  '  One  and  the  same  act  cannot 
be  agreeable  and  not  agreeable,  because  it  would 
be  and  would  not  be  good.  '  These  are  Scotistic 
subtleties  which  I  cite  to  show  how  far  they 
are  from  the  truth,  when  they  measure  divine 
things  by  little  human  reasons.  They  would 
not  speak  so,  if  they  w^ere  not  ignorant  of  Scripture 
truth.  "  1 

Persons  w^ho  hold  that  mysticism  is  the  aber- 
ration, or  at  least  the  total  abdication,  of  reason, 
will  conclude  that  we  are  now  fully  immersed  in 
mysticism.  We  are  not;  nor  shall  we  be  when  we 
take  up  his  words  on  drawing  near  to  Christ, 
which  is  the  admirable  and  seductive  feature 
of  the  rebel  monk's  appeal  to  souls.  For,  when 
looked  at  more  closely,  this  mysticism  is  seen  to 
lack  the  very  essence  of  real  mysticism;  the 
veritable  union  of  which  St.  Paul  speaks  is  excluded 
as  impossible  here  below.  Unpardoned  sins  must 
be  an  insuperable  obstacle  to  union  (although 
they  are  covered),  and  the  grace  of  Christ,  exterior 
and  extrinsic,  does  not  bridge  over  the  distance 
between  the  soul  and  God.  Now,  God  is  infinitely 
good  and  liberal.  How  has  He  not  found  the 
secret  of  enriching  the  soul  in  which  he  dwells? 
He  is  infinitely  holy.  How  could  he  dwell  with 
sin? 

1.     Dexifle-Paquier,   III,   285. 


80  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

And  if  the  soul  is  warned  to  be  on  its  guard 
against  works  performed  in  union  with  Christ,  it 
must  be  that  the  union  is  not  real.  For  any  union 
with  God  must  be  fruitful,  and  this  is  why  St.  Paul 
speaks  with  so  much  joy  of  the  fruits  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

We  have  said  enough  to  show  that  Luther, 
instead  of  following  the  current  of  St.  Paul's 
thought  (a  thought  which  does  not  always  flow 
smoothly  but  which  is  ever  recognizable),  fixed  on 
isolated  words  to  formulate  a  doctrine  which  would 
solve  the  contradiction  of  his  personal  experience  : 
his  great  longing  for  an  assurance  of  his  personal 
salvation,  contradicted  by  the  menace  of  a  possibly 
victorious  concupiscence. 

Henceforward  he  possessed  the  criterion  of  all 
Scriptural  truth.  His  exegesis,  personal  and 
subjective,  ceased  at  the  same  time  to  be  synthetic. 
He  could  not  with  decency  both  rest  on  St.  Paul 
and  openly  reject  part  of  his  teaching.  But  the 
Epistle  of  St.  James  clearly  preached  good  works. 
It  was  declared  a  "  right  strawy  epistle.  " 

Tradition  is  upset  at  the  same  time.  As  Harnack 
has  well  put  it  :  "In  Luther's  Reformation  the 
old  dogmatic  Christianity  was  discarded  and  a 
new  evangehcal  view  substituted  for  it.  "  ^  The 
liberties  taken  with  exegesis  were  not  a  sufficient 
manifestation  of  independence  and  his  right  over 
.  texts.  Luther  was  pleased  to  add  a  word  —  only 
a  little  word  —  to  the  Epistle  to  Romans.  St.  Paul 
said,     "  We  hold  that  man  is  justified  by  faith 


1.     History  of  Dogma,  VII,  p. 


227. 


THE    FALSE     MYSTICISM    OF    LUTHER  81 

without  the  works  of  the  Law.  "  ^  In  Luther's 
translation  we  have  :  "  We  hold  that  man  is 
justified  without  the  works  of  the  law  by  faith 
alone.  "  "  Alone  "  is  added.  The  idea  of  Paul  is, 
indeed,  that  faith  suffices,  without  works,  for  the 
first  justification  of  the  one  who  is  baptized;  but 
by  faith  he  understands  the  complete  faith  of  the 
catechumen,  who  embraces  Christianity  with  his 
whole  soul.  By  putting  in  "  alone,  "  the  translator 
appears  to  exclude  charity.  However  that  be,  it 
is  not  a  translator's  business  to  change  the  text. 
His  attention  was  called  to  the  matter.  His 
partisans  hesitated  to  say  that  he  was  right.  As 
for  himself  :  "  I  beg  you  not  to  listen  to  the  useless 
bawling  of  such  asses  about  the  word  '  alone' ;  be 
satisfied  with  answering  them,  '  Luther  so  wills 
it  and  he  says  that  he  is  a  doctor  above  all  the 
doctors  of  all  Popedom.  The  word  must  remain 
in  its  place. '  Henceforth,  I  wish  simply  to  despise 
them,  and  to  hold  them  as  despised,  so  long  as  they 
remain  what  they  are,  that  is,  a  pack  of  asses.  "  ^ 
Evidently  that  settles  it;  there  is  nothing  to 
answer. 

-1: 

*  * 

As  a  founder  of  a  religion,  Luther  must  hold  his 
power  from  God,  He  did  not  fail  to  claim  that 
he  did  :  "  I  am  certain  that  I  received  my  doctrine 
from  heaven.  "  He  must  utter  prophecies,  and 
he  uttered  a  solemn  one  :  "  Notwithstanding  all 

1.  Rom.  HI,  28. 

2.  Denifle-Paquier,  III,  p.  190 


82  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

the  gates  of  hell  and  all  the  powers  of  the  air,  of 
the  earth,  and  of  the  sea,  my  dogmas  shall  remain, 
and  the  Pope  shall  fall.  God  will  see  who  goes 
down  first,  the  Pope  or  Luther.  "  ^ 

The  Pope  still  stands;  but  it  is  only  too  certain 
that  Luther  still  dominates  religious  sentiment 
in  the  greater  part  of  Germany.  And  perhaps 
you  think.  Gentlemen,  that  I  have  exaggerated ! 
If  truly  the  new  religion  of  the  Germans  is  based 
in  its  origin  upon  a  series  of  misconstructions,  how 
is  that  the  Germans  have  not  noticed  it  ?  or  if  they 
have  noticed  it,  how  can  they  so  glorify  Luther? 
This  is  the  problem  which  we  set  ourselves  at  the 
beginning  and  which  we  cannot  but  take  up, 
however  inscrutable  it  may  appear. 

In  the  first  place,  even  though  Luther  was  not  a 
correct  and  conscientious  exegete,  he  was  a  man  of 
powerful  personality.  It  was  precisely  this  per- 
sonality, the  vehemence  of  his  impulses  and  the 
strange  force  of  his  imagination,  that  prevented 
him  from  following  those  common  ways  in  which 
there  is  more  likehhood  of  keeping  in  touch  with 
the  meaning  of  texts.  Nowadays  those  German 
critics  who  are  altogether  independent  of  Lutheran- 
ism,  have  no  hesitation  in  admitting  that  Luther 
did  not  understand  St.  Paul.  Very  inferior  to 
Erasmus  and  even  to  Lefevre  d'Etaples  as  a 
humanist,  incapable  of  any  nice  appreciation  of 
the  modalities  of  language  and  of  thought,  absolu- 
tely unacquainted  with  even  the  concept  of 
historical    criticism,    Luther    contributed   to   exe- 

1.  Denifle-Paquier,  III,  p.  486. 


THE    FALSE    MYSTICISM    OF    LUTHER  83 

gesis  only  by  eccentricities  which  should  be  recog- 
nized as  baseless.  But  it  is  hard  for  most 
Protestant  Germans  to  admit  such  things,  or  even 
closely  to  inspect  their  great  man;  they  are  not  so 
scrupulous  when  it  is  question  of  Jesus  Christ  ! 
But  the  genius  of  Luther  was  so  completely  in 
harmony  with  that  of  his  race  that  he  seems  even 
to-day  to  be  its  accomphshed  type  in  the  rehgious 
order.  But  in  what,  to  be  more  definite,  did  Euther 
appeal  to  German  dispositions  and  aspirations? 
To  this  question  there  has  been  given  an  answer 
which  I  long  held  sufficient,  which  explains  a  great 
many  of  the  facts,  but  which  does  not  completely 
solve  the  problem.  Heinrich,  whom  I  have 
already  cited,  has  recalled  the  words  of  Tacitus  : 
"  The  German  tribes  do  not  dwell  in  cities,  as  is 
well  enough  known;  they  cannot  even  endure  one 
another  as  neighbors.  They  cultivate  isolated 
sections  of  land,  the  site  of  which  is  determined 
by  a  spring,  a  field  or  a  grove  that  has  appealed  to 
them.  "  1  So  in  Lutheranism.  Its  essential 
article  makes  it  necessary  for  each  one  to  beheve 
that  his  sins  are  washed  away  by  the  sacrifice  of 
Calvary.  "  Faith,  "  continues  the  same  writer, 
'•  is  reduced  to  a  sort  of  mathematical  point  which 
leaves  all  the  immensity  of  space  open  to  the  free 
conjectures  of  personal  interpretations.  All  other 
dogmas  and  observances  become  a  mere  matter 
of  special  relations  between  the  soul  and   God. 

1.  De  moribus  Germanorum,  XVI  :  Nullas  Germanorum 
populis  urhes  hahitari,  satis  notum  est;  ne  pati  quidem  inter 
se  iunctas  sedes.  Colunt  discreti  ac  diversi,  ut  fons,  ut  campus, 
lit  nemus  placuit. 


84  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

It  is  like  an  individual  contract  in  which  each  man 
stipulates  for  himself.  The  ancient  independence 
of  the  German  will,  then,  reappear  in  the  religious 
life.  "  1 

This  is  very  true,  but  there  is  something  else. 
Once  the  outbreak  of  independence  had  been 
repressed,  and  harshly  repressed,  by  the  princes  of 
Germany,  Lutheranism  congealed  into  a  new 
orthodoxy,  as  jealous  about  its  boundaries  as  the 
old,  and  the  diverse  confessions  which  depended 
on  it  isolated  and  grouped  themselves  in  com- 
munities according  to  the  place  in  which  people 
lived.  Each  region  had  its  rehgion  and  dictated 
it  according  to  rather  strict  rules;  the  government 
protected  rehgion  because  it  became  a  regular  part 
of  the  administration.  There  was  presented,  then, 
that  spectacle,  so  strange  to  us,  of  very  exact 
obedience  to  a  prince,  even  in  the  religious  sphere, 
practiced  by  communities  which  were  very  proud 
of  their  emancipation  from  Rome.  In  the  time 
of  M^6  de  Stael  the  contrast  appeared  curious; 
she  explained  it  with  her  ordinary  benevolence  : 
*'  The  enhghtened  men  of  Germany  are  keen  about 
their  privileges  in  the  speculative  domain,  and 
bear  with  no  hindrances  therein ;  but  they  abandon 
rather  wilhngly  to  the  powerful  ones  of  the  earth 
all  the  reahty  of  hfe.  "  2 

This  is  the  picture  of  that  dreamy  Germany, 
which  we  beheved  ideahstic  hke  ourselves.  We 
were  inchned  to  take  the  poet  of  Schiller,  who 


1.  Histoire  de  la  litierature  allemande    I,  p.  429. 

2.  De  V Allemagnej  I.  ch.  ii. 


THE    FALSE    MYSTICISM    OF    LUTHER  85 

presents  himself  before  the  throne  of  Jupiter  when 
all  the  good  things  of  the  earth  are  already  distrib- 
uted, as  typical  of  the  race.  Provided  it  muses 
and  thinks,  what  matters  the  reality  of  hfe?  If 
this  was  a  true  picture  in  M^^  de  Stael's  time, 
then  Germany  has  changed.  It  is  not  how  Ger- 
many has  recently  appeared  to  us.  But  it  seems, 
rather,  that  she  has  always  shown  constant 
tendencies.  It  must  be  understood  that  we  are 
not  speaking  of  the  race  as  possessing  certain 
essential  characteristics  on  account  of  descent, 
but  of  a  group  of  peoples  which  practice  certain 
special  kinds  of  culture.  That  the  culture  of  the 
Germans  is  different  from  that  of  other  men,  they 
have  often  enough  said,  and  they  are  well  satisfied 
that  it  should  be  so. 

It  would,  then,  be  necessary  to  explain  two 
contradictory  tendencies,  which  they  have  always 
manifested  and  which  they  still  manifest  :  inde- 
pendence as  regards  spiritual  authority  and  punctual 
obedience  to  the  sovereigns  of  the  States,  an 
independence  which  makes  them  so  free  as  thinkers, 
and  an  obedience  which  makes  them  so  perfect 
as  functionaries.  The  reason  is  perhaps  a  sort  of 
indifference,  and  it  is  not  unjust  to  add,  of  incapa- 
city, regarding  abstract  principles,  and  a  very  keen 
sense  of  the  pratical  advantages  of  discipline. 

In  fact,  as  Ozanam  pointed  out,  the  ancient 
Germans  possessed  in  germ  the  same  institutions 
as  the  Romans  or  the  Greeks.  Among  them,  as 
among  the  others,  rehgion  and  law  stood  opposed 
to  anarchy.  But  whereas  the  Greeks  and  Romans 
put   order  in  their  religions  and  caused  law  to 


86  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

prevail  over  force,  in  Germany,  "  the  rule  bends 
under  the  stress  put  upon  it  by  the  effort  of  indocile 
imaginations  and  wills ;  we  see  this  spirit  of  disorder, 
that  is,  of  barbarism,  prevail  in  rehgious  matters, 
and  Germany  has  never  been  able  to  rid  her- 
self of  it  entirely,  "  ^  and,  in  the  sphere  of  law, 
authority  yielded  everywhere  before  the  strivings 
of  hberty.  When  the  Roman  said,  "  Let  arms 
yield  to  the  togal  "  he  did  not  mean  that  the 
fasces  of  the  military  leader  were  to  be  lowered 
before  the  eloquent  talker  of  the  forum,  as  his 
words  are  too  frequently  understood  nowadays; 
he  set  in  opposition  law,  as  expounded  and  appHed 
by  judges,  and  the  violence  which  seeks  to  obtain 
with  arms  what  it  deems  right.  We  have  here 
the  whole  difference  between  civilization  and 
barbarism.  The  antagonism  between  authority 
and  liberty  has  been  found  everywhere.  In 
Grseco- Roman  societies,  authority  remained  mis- 
tress of  the  situation ;  among  the  Germans  it  gave 
way. 

If  authority  appeared  victorious  for  a  time,  it 
was  under  the  influence  of  Christianity,  and  the 
German  who  had  not  been  Romanized  resisted  this 
influence  as  much  as  he  could.  He  has,  however, 
known  how  to  practice  obedience,  and  a  very 
punctual  obedience,  which  some  regard  as  exces- 
sive. But  under  what  condition?  "  The  Ger- 
man, "  Prince  von  Biilow  has  written,  "  by  tem- 
perament, feels  more  at  ease  bound  to  little  associa- 
tions,  than  when   arrayed  in  the  vast  national 

1.     Les  Germains^  I,  p.  110. 


THE    FALSE    M^YSTICISM    OF    LUTHER  87 

union.  ^  ''  Nevertheless,  we  should  say,  he  felt 
at  ease  when  he  joined  his  superior  to  conquer  the 
world,  when  he  went  down  into  Italy  with  Otho, 
thinking  that  he  was  taking  the  road  to  Byzantium 
to  unite  the  two  crowns,  or  when  he  pursued  under 
the  Hohenstaufen  his  dream  of  universal  empire, 
when  in  our  days... 

The  decisive  point  is  not,  then,  the  size  of  the 
association,  great  or  small,  a  society  for  the  exploita- 
tion of  the  planet,  or  a  modest  Verein  to  raise 
cabbage.  The  point  by  which  the  Germans  are 
distinguished  from  other  peoples  is  that  they  have 
less  the  abstract  concept  of  the  State  than  the  very 
concrete  notion  of  an  object  to  be  aimed  at  and 
of  the  advantages  which  are  to  be  gathered.  And, 
indeed,  these  visible  and  tangible  utilities  are  more 
easily  found  in  httle  groupings  than  in  great  states. 
This  is  why  the  German,  ever  ready  to  follow  his 
miUtary  leader  in  fruitful  expeditions,  was  ordi- 
narily very  careful  not  to  allow  him  to  encroach 
upon  the  liberties  of  the  cities  or  little  states  in 
which  he  found  his  conveniences.  There  is  in  this 
German  attitude,  as  Ozanam  has  remarked,  a 
salutary  principle  of  resistance  to  that  encroach- 
ment of  the  State  which  may  become  a  tyranny 
for  souls.  But  has  the  independence  of  the  Ger- 
mans manifested  itself,  as  did  that  of  the  first 
Christians,  in  a  protest  of  conscience  against 
oppression?  I  cannot  see  that  it  has;  history 
shows  us  that  they  handed  over  to  princes  the 
administration  of  their  churches.     In  this  struggle 

1.     See  Revue  des  Deux-Mondes,  Feb.  \,  1915,  p.  604 


88  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

between  liberty  and  authority,  I  would  gladly 
congratulate  them  if,  hke  the  Enghsh,  and  like  the 
Americans,  they  had  held  in  check  the  usurping 
omnipotence  of  the  State  through  a  clear  apprehen- 
sion of  the  rights  of  individual  hberty.  But  it 
seems  to  be  the  very  concept  of  the  State  which 
was  lacking  in  their  case,  that  concept  of  the 
res  publica,  which  the  Romans  conceived,  Fustel 
de  Goulange  tells  us,  as  "a  constant  and  eternal 
being...  a  sort  of  monarch  that  was  indiscernible, 
omnipotent,  nevertheless,  and  absolute.  "  ^ 

Like  the  State,  law  had,  even  in  free  Athens,  an 
absolute  character  :  "  One  must  do,  "  said  Socrates 
before  drinking  the  hemlock,  "  what  the  city  and 
country  command,  in  war,  at  the  tribunals,  and 
everywhere.  "  ^  Transfer  this  idea  of  law  into  the 
ecclesiastical  sphere,  and  see  what  violent  invectives 
it  will  call  forth  from  Luther !  If  it  were  even 
question  of  a  national  power !  But  the  power  of 
the  Pope  has  succeeded  to  that  of  Rome.  To 
break  with  him,  is  to  return  to  the  hberty  of  the 
noble  sons  of  Germania,  —  which  noble  sons 
Luther  very  brutally  denounces  within  the  family 
circle. 

Thus,  we  believe,  we  may  explain  the  action 
of  the  Germans  in  shaking  off  the  yoke  of  a  great 
spiritual  power  which  they  regarded  as  foreign. 
It  went  counter  at  the  same  time  to  their  instinct 
for  independence  and  to  their  utilitarian  instinct. 

This  repugnance  to  grasp  firmly  what  may  be 


1.  Histoire  des   Institutions,    I,   p.    147. 

2.  Crito,  XII. 


THE    FALSE    MYSTICISM    OF    LUTHER  89 

called  the  dogma  of  authority,  whether  it  be  in 
the  temporal  or,  especially,  the  spiritual  domain, 
explains  hkewise  why  the  doctrine  of  Luther 
appealed  so  strongly  to  the  national  temperament 
by  its  indifference  about  abstract  ideas. 

Germany  is  particularly  satisfied  with  her 
philosophers;  Kant  and  Hegel  do  not  seem  to  her 
inferior  to  Goethe,  and  Nietzsche  used  still  to 
arouse  enthusiasm  after  he  had  lost  his  mind. 
She  claims  to  possess  a  feeling  for  the  absolute 
and  for  depth,  and  opposes  it  to  the  superficial 
parcelhng  out  of  concepts  after  the  manner  of  Plato, 
of  Aristotle,  and  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas.  I  fear 
that  this  is  a  mere  pose,  a  way  to  hide  as  best  she 
can  what  is  her  most  notable  deficiency,  namely, 
lack  of  acuteness.  To  see  things  in  the  absolute 
might  very  well  signify  to  see  things  in  the  mass 
and  in  a  general  way;  it  might  be  predicated  of  one 
who  lacks  the  keenness  requisite  to  make  necessary 
distinctions.  I  may  here  let  Goethe  speak.  He 
is  the  greatest  genius  of  German  literature,  perhaps 
the  only  one  who  has  really  enriched  the  patrimony 
of  .mankind  by  the  combination  of  Greek  precision 
with  the  varied  flexibihty  of  German  poetry. 
When  he  boldly  transposed  the  words  of  St.  John, 
*'  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  "  into  the  saying, 
*'  In  the  beginning  was  action,  "  he  did  not  change 
the  eternal  order  of  Truth,  but  he  clearly  revealed 
the  deepest  aspiration  of  his  people,  which  is  action. 
It  used  to  be  said  in  the  Middle  Ages  that  God  has 
given  the  university  to  the  French  as  to  the  more 
intelhgent,  empire  to  the  Germans  as  to  the  more 
warUke,  and  I  do  not  see  that  modern  times  have 


90  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

to  change  this  verdict  on  account  of  the  wonderful 
achievements  of  the  German  universities,  for, 
according  to  another  saying  of  Goethe,  "  The 
German  is  capable  in  matters  of  detail,  but  he  is 
pitiable  in  dealing  with  the  whole.  "  ^  It  is 
another  way  of  saying  that  he  cannot  easily  rise 
to  these  universal  reasons  which  are  contained 
in  the  Word.  And  besides  he  does  not  attach 
much  importance  to  such  elevations  of  the  mind. 
Another  German,  who  was  a  very  great  man  also, 
Lessing,  will  tell  us  that  the  search  for  truth  excites 
in  him  much  more  enthusiasm  than  its  possession. 
And  were  we  carefully  to  study  German  philoso- 
phers, we  should  see  their  ego,  the  individual  ego, 
the  ego  of  the  Prussian  state,  the  ego  of  the  German 
genius,  make  itself  the  center  of  the  truth  of  things 
and  the  norm  of  justice.  Without  attributing  to 
the  whole  of  Germany,  especially  to  that  of  other 
days,  such  extravagant  pretentions,  one  must 
recognize  at  least  the  very  personal  character,  we 
may  say  the  subjectivity,  which  is  in  her  appre- 
ciation of  things.  Hence  results  indifference  or 
impatience  in  regard  to  objective  dogma.  Kant 
was  very  German  when  he  gave  up  the  effort  to 
find  God  with  pure  reason,  and  gave  Him  back 
some  existence  with  moral  reason. 

Now  what  Kant  did  for  God,  Luther  had  done 
for  Christianity.  He  did  not  despoil  it  of  all  its 
dogmas ;  he  upheld  some  of  them  very  energetically, 
but  for  the  reason  that  he,  Martin  Luther,  had 


1.     Cited  by  Frince  von  Biilow,  Pevue  des  Deux-Mondes, 
Feb.  1,  1915,  p.  613. 


THE    FALSE    MYSTICISM    OF    LUTHER    •  91 

made  up  his  mind  not  to  be  drawn  beyond  a  certain  . 
limit.     As   a  matter   of   fact   he   transferred   the 
whole  of  Christianity  into  the  moral  sphere,  and 
he  even  reduced  it  to  the  one  point  of  the  individual 
confidence  of  each  man  in  his  salvation.     This  is, 
as  we  have  seen,  what  Professor  Harnack  calls  an 
"  emancipating  simphfication  ";  it  is  a  simphfica- 
tion  which  is  not  the  w^ork  of  the  genius  who 
contemplates   in   a   principle   all  the   conclusions 
which  flow  therefrom,  but  a  reduction  to  a  mi- 
nimum in  the  moral  sphere,  in  which  one  takes 
refuge  in  order  freely  to  discuss  behefs.     And  it  is 
perhaps  because  of  this  vagueness  that  Luther- 
anism  has  shown  itself  absolutely  unable  to  realize 
its  rehgious  thought  in  architecture,  in  sculpture,  or 
even  in  painting,  whereas  its  Bachs  and  Hsendels 
have  given  it  incomparable  musical  expression. 

By  his  individual  moral  accent,  by  his  rehgious 
sentiment  which  was  deep,  enthusiastic  and  poetic, 
by  his  rich  and  varied  powers  of  imagination,  by 
his  almost  creative  action  on  his  vernacular 
language,  by  his  unwearied  activity,  his  headstrong 
obstinacy,  his  rude  polemics,  his  ribald  reahsm, 
and  also  by  his  hatred  of  Rome,  by  his  enfranchise- 
ment from  troublesome  observances,  such  as  fasts 
and  abstinences,  by  his  plunder  of  the  Church's 
wealth,  by  the  rather  vulgar  mirth  of  his  married 
ex-monks,  Luther  gained  the  heart  of  the  Germans. 
Not  to  speak  of  divided  Christendom,  of  the  wars 
of  rehgion  which  rent  his  country  and  ours,  of  the 
ruin  of  souls,  must  mankind  regard  him  as  one  of 
its  most  powerful  minds? 

According  to  the  opinion  of  most  men,  no  one  is  a 


92  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

really  great  genius  who  has  not  a  clear  consciousness 
of  his  work.     I  do  not  mean  that  he  must  dominate 
over  the  future,  which  is  given  to  no  one;  but  he 
must    know   what   he   is    doing.     Richeheu    and 
Napoleon  perhaps  cooperated  in  the  formation  of 
modern  Germany,  but  they  knew  the  bearing  of 
their  actions,  Richelieu  in  affirming  the  power  of 
the  State,  Napoleon  in  organizing  the  Revolution. 
But    did    Luther    understand    that    his    personal 
interpretation  of  the  Bible  was  founding  freedom 
of  inquiry,  that  he  was  destroying  as  much  as  it 
was  in  his  power  the  rehgion  which  he  loved  and 
which  he  would  restore  to  its  primitive  purity? 
He  is  the  father  of  free  inquiry,  as  Voltaire  is  the 
father  of  democracy.     Voltaire  is  the   father  of 
democracy,  which  he  detested,  because,  in  playing 
like  a  capricious  child,  he  shook  that  social  order 
in  which  he  was  so  much  at  ease.     Shall  it  be  said 
that  these  unconscious  wreckers  are  truly  great 
men?     France  does  not  say  it  of  Voltaire,  thank 
God.     Germany  can  say  it  of  Luther  since  she  does 
not  attach  importance  to  the  clear  apprehension 
of  concepts.     It  is  enough  for  her  that  Luther  led 
after  him  millions  of  minds,  as  others  draw  after 
them  millions  of  soldiers.     This  is  the  judgment 
of   the  German   Dcellinger.     We    expect    another 
judgment  of  humanity.     One  point  that  is  already 
perfectly  clear  is  that  Luther  did  not  understand 
the  texts  of  St.  Paul  upon  which,  as  upon  a  solid 
foundation,  he  attempted  to  erect  the  new  meaning 
which  he  gave  to  Christianity.    But  this  point  does 
not  make  any  difference  to  the   Germans.     I  ask 
myself,  have  they  sufficient  esteem  for  the  truth? 


THIRD  LECTURE. 

THE  ACCUSATION   OF  IMPOSTURE   BY   THE 
DEISTS 


I.     Dogmatism    of    early    Lutheranism  ;    the 
ERA  OF   Pietism;    the   rise  of  Deism. 

Luther's  rebellion  against  the  Church  caused 
in  Germany,  as  might  have  been  anticipated,  an 
outbreak  of  religious  and  social  anarchy.  But 
ideas  never  triumph  completely  over  an  established 
order  to  which  many  interests  are  attached.  In 
France,  for  instance,  after  the  revolutionary 
tempest  had  subsided,  a  new  social  order  was 
demanded  by  those  who  had  benefited  by  the  over- 
throw^ of  fortunes,  and  it  was  based  largely  upon 
the  traditions  of  the  old  regime.  The  very  simple 
reason  is  perhaps  that  a  group  of  men  cannot  live 
together  in  peace  without  conforming  to  certain 
principles. 

In  the  XVI  century  very  subversive  doctrines 
were  heard  for  a  while  among  Luther's  countrymen. 
Hans  Denk  (d.  1528)  taught  that  Jesus  was  only 
the  ideal  man;  ^  a  forerunner  of  Hegel,  Sebastian 
Frank  (d.  c.   1542),  declared  that  our  nature  is 

1,  ViGOUROUX,  Les  Lures  saints  et  la  critique  rationaliste j 
I,  p.  449. 


94  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

divine  and  that  the  absolute  being,  which  is 
inanimate,  reahzes  itself  in  us,  who  are  the  *•  actua- 
lity of  God.  "  ^  These  voices,  however,  were 
isolated  and  they  were  soon  silenced.  In  Italy 
a  radically  changed  Christianity  was  professed  by 
the  Socini;  and  the  denial  of  Christianity  by 
Giordano  Bruno,  though  subtle,  was  real.  Here, 
indeed,  upon  the  classical  soil  of  Italy,  the  pagan 
renaissance  had  developed  more  distinctly  than 
elsewhere  its  naturalistic  consequences.  But  in 
Germany,  despite  Luther's  alhances  with  the 
humanists,  —  temporary  leagues  entered  into  for 
political  purposes,  — the  Reformation  was  rather  a 
reaction,  mystical  in  appearance,  of  the  old  Chris- 
tian faith  against  the  emancipation  of  reason. 
Moreover,  and  this  is  almost  a  sufficient  explanation 
even  when  taken  alone,  the  rulers  of  Germany  did 
not  conceive  it  possible  that  a  country  could  live 
without  rrligion;  and  religion  for  them  meant  the 
religion  of  Christ.  It  is  one  of  the  merits  of  the 
school  of  Durkheim  to  have  demonstrated,  after 
a  far-reaching  inquiry,  what  we  already  knew, 
namely,  that  every  religion  must  have  a  social 
form.  This  applies  to  the  Catholic  Church,  which 
is  herself  a  society.  Instead  of  remaining  in  this 
Church,  which  God  had  made  capable  of  containing 
all  mankind,  Germany,  giving  way  to  her  taste  for 
little  unions,  divided  up  into  departments  to  prac- 
tice once  more  a  rehgious  life  which  she  considered 
simplified  and  nearer  to  primitive  Christianity,  and 


i.  ViGOUROUx,.  i.e5  Lipres  saints  et  la  critique  raiionaUste, 
I,  p.  452. 


THE    ACCUSATION    OF    IMPOSTURE  93 

which  was  to  prove  a  mere  transition  toward 
unbelief.  Whilst  other  countries  adopted  more 
completely  evolved  forms  of  Protestantism,  Ger- 
many clung  to  Luther.  Her  theologians  set  them- 
selves the  task  of  defending  his  formulas;  and 
nearly  everybody  seemed  satisfied  with  those 
meetings  in  which  hymns  and  instrumental  music 
favored  a  dreamy  exaltation  of  the  soul.  A  hter- 
ature  came  into  existence;  Paul  Gerhardt  is  its 
most  characteristic  representative.  It  was  sincere- 
ly Christian,  inspired  by  the  passion  of  Christ, 
but  very  narrow  in  its  outlook.  A  St.  Bernard 
in  his  solitude  of  Clairvaux  was  attentive  to  all 
the  interests  of  Christendom.  Paul  Gerhardt,  as 
Heinrich  tells  us,  "  has  in  view  a  small  group, 
bound  together  by  close  ties,  a  parish,  of  which  he 
would  make  but  one  family,  and,  so  to  speak,  but 
one  soul.  "  ^    Little  churches  replaced  the  Church. 

The  only  confederate  authority  binding  these 
little  churches  to  one  another  was  that  of  Holy 
Scripture.  In  appearance  the  authority  of  the 
Word  of  God  was  enhanced.  Since  it  was  the  rule 
of  faith  which  demands  the  submission  of  every 
reader,  its  very  letter  must  be  the  work  of  God. 
Lutherans  found  in  the  Church  behef  in  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Holy  Books;  far  from  diminishing  this 
behef,  they  manifested  a  tendency  to  make  the 
action  of  God  more  exclusive  of  any  real  human 
authorship. 

The  Church  professed  then,  as  she  does  now,  that 
<  he  Bible  has  God  for  its  author,  that  the  teaching 

i.  Hist,  de  la  Hit.  all.,  I,  p.  488. 


96  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

of  its  human  writers  is  also  the  teaching  of  God. 
Some  theorists  had  thought  to  make  this  notion 
clearer  by  comparing  the  sacred  writers  to  musical 
instruments  played  upon  by  the  Holy  Spirit;  to 
Him  alone  would  belong  the  melody  and  the 
accord.  This  comparison,  like  most  comparisons, 
may  suggest  untrue  ideas.  One  who  imagines 
God  using  the  inspired  person  as  a  fluteplayer  his 
flute,  is  apt  to  think  of  an  Isaias  or  a  Paul  as  a  sort 
of  phonograph.  The  main  current  of  the  Church's 
tradition  has  always  preserved  the  personality  of 
the  inspired  writer  and  assigned  to  him  functions 
of  a  real  author,  who  exercises  his  faculties  in  full 
liberty  under  the  enhghtening  and  guiding  action 
of  God.  To  know  what  God  teaches  us,  we  must 
determine  the  thought  of  the  human  teacher. 
This,  we  have  seen,  is  the  task  of  exegesis,  if  we 
take  the  word  in  its  strict  sense.  The  ever  recur- 
ring difficulty  of  exegesis  consists  precisely  in 
finding  out  in  Scripture  what  is  taught. 

Since  the  days  when  St.  Augustine  applied  his 
genius  to  the  task  of  showing  the  harmony  of  the 
Evangelists,  the  Church  has  always  admitted  that 
this  agreement  was  in  ideas  rather  than  in  words. 
Commentators  have  often  maintained,  without 
incurring  any  official  blame,  the  identity  of  facts 
related  in  quite  a  different  manner  in  different 
Gospels.  They  have  applied,  more  broadly  than 
St.  Augustine,  the  principles  of  St.  Augustine, 
namely,  that  we  should  not  look  for  verbal  harmony 
and  that  the  variations  of  the  Evangelists  are  to 
be  explained  by  a  reference  to  their  general  aim. 
Th6  first  period  of  Lutheranism,  far  from  showing 


THE    ACCUSATION    OF    IMPOSTURE  97 

any  progress  in  this  direction,  shows,  on  the 
contrary,  a  bsickward  movement.  Luther,  we 
have  said,  saw  in  Christianity  only  the  trustful 
relation  of  the  sinful  soul  with  God.  He  had  no 
concern  about  facts.  Neither  had  his  immediate 
successors.  Unrestricted  import  w^as  given  to 
every  text,  regardless  of  consequences.  According 
to  Osiander  (1498-1552),  one  must  always  multiply 
events  which  the  Evangelists  seem  to  assign  to 
different  times,  no  matter  how  alike  their  circum- 
stances may  be.  If  several  evangehsts  do  not 
place  at  the  same  moment  the  resurrection  of 
Jairus'  daughter,  it  is  because  she  was  raised 
several  times.  ^  Likewise,  by  adding  up  the 
denials  of  St.  Peter,  one  gets  eight  denials  of  his 
Master,  instead  of  three. 

But  while  Protestant  dogmatic  theologians  were 
thus  outbidding  their  CathoHc ,  opponents,  their 
flock,  (if  we  may  still  speak  of  a  flock  when  there 
are  no  true  shepherds),  indifferent  concerning  such 
subtleties,  sought  in  Scripture  only  the  consola- 
tion promised  by  Luther  in  the  name  of  the  "Holy 
Spirit. 

We  are  apt  to  pass  too  rapidly  over  this  stage  of 
Protestantism,  when  following  the  history  of  the 
progress  of  free  enquiry.  It  is  the  era  of  Pietism, 
which  intervenes  between  early  Lutheranism 
and  the  complete  emancipation  of  reason.  It 
would  never  have  occurred  to  Luther  to  trust  the 
powers  of  individual  reason  to  interpret  the  Bible. 
He  had  promised  his  followers  that  the  Holy  Ghost 

1.  Schweitzer,  p.  13. 


98  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

the  Author  of  Scripture,  would  make  them  relish 
and  understand  it.  This  was  a  necessary  condition 
if  His  written  Word  was  to  be  an  infaUible  guide ; 
otherwise,  each  reader  would  understand  it  in  his 
own  way.  But,  in  fact,  each  reader  did  so  under- 
stand it;  the  Holy  Ghost,  then,  did  not  intend  that 
the  Bible  should  be  the  immediate  rule  of  faith. 
The  existence  of  varied,  idiosyncratic  interpreta- 
tions and  the  assistance  of  the  Holy  Ghost  granted 
to  individual  interpreters,  so  clearly  exclude  one 
another  that  one  wonders  how  otherwise  logical 
thinkers  have  been  able  to  hold  at  one  and  the  same 
time  the  Lutheran  view  of  the  part  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  and  the 
right  of  individuals  to  adopt  whatever  views  they 
like  about  the  meaning  of  Scripture.  Examine, 
for  instance,  the  logic  of  the  preface  which  Magny 
wrote  for  his  translation  of  the  Lutheran  book  of 
Tennhard  :  "  The  principal  purpose  of  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  is  to  make  us  fear  God  and  keep  His 
commandments,  for  this  is  the  whole  duty  of  man. 
Now,  in  regard  to  particular  truths  and  to  particular 
means  for  reaching  eternal  salvation,  it  is  well 
known  that  everybody  explains  Scripture  as  he 
likes;  and  most  people  endeavor  to  give  it  a  sense 
which  adapts  it  to  their  prejudices...  For  this 
reason  we  need  another  interpreter,  an  infallible 
judge^.  "  Do  you  think  he  is  going  to  draw  the 
inference  that  we  must  have  an  infallible  Church 
and  a  Pope?  Listen  to  his  conclusion  :  "  We  need 
an  infallible  judge  who  is  above  Scripture,  and 
who  has  Himself  dictated  Scripture,  namely,  the 
Spirit  of  God,  who,  by  His  light  and  by  His  interior 


THE  ACCUSATION  OF  IMPOSTURE        99 

teaching,  alone  can  give  clear  and  certain  under- 
standing of  the  real  meaning  of  Scripture  and  of 
Christ's  institution,  and  lead  us  in  all  truth.  ^  " 

This  is  not  absolute  nonsense;  there  is  an  idea 
back  of  these  seemingly  incoherent  statements.  To 
reaUze  that  there  is,  you  must  try  to  get  the 
viewpoint  of  the  Pietist.  Magny  means  that  we 
may  understand  Scripture  as  we  like  so  long  as 
we  are  within  the  realm  of  dogma;  but  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  inspires  each  individual,  when  he  reads 
the  Bible,  to  practise  the  moral  virtues,  virtues 
which  the  Pietist  still  calls  Christian. 

Pietism  had  already  pervaded  Lutheranism  at 
the  end  of  the  XVII  century.  Dogmatic  contro- 
versies no  longer  interested  the  laity;  and  in  the 
countries  where  the  Church's  voice  was  no  longer 
heard  every  one  made  up  his  own  little  relig- 
ion. This  expression  of  the  EngUsh  Fielding  is 
adopted  by  Madame,  Duchess  of  Orleans,  who 
was  a  German  ^.  We  must  not  suppose,  however, 
that  the  Pietists  understood  that  this  freedom  in 
religious  matters  meant  for  Teutons  all  that  it  sug- 
gests to  the  Latin  mind.  Creeds  were  no  longer 
powerful  enough  to  govern  the  intellect ;  people  no 
longer  believed  what  was  contained  in  the  profes- 
sions of  faith  drawn  up  for  their  little  groups ;  but 
no  one  assumed  the  right  to  leave  his  group.  The 
outward  structure  was  maintained,  though  it  was 
understood  that  there  was  no  such  thing  as  exterior 


1.  Cited  by   Ma.sson,   La  Formation   religieuse  de   Rous- 
seau, p.  70. 

2.  Masson,  ibid.,  p.  68. 


100  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

authority  in  matters  of  doctrine.  The  Lutheran 
Churches  became  disinterested  in  what  relates  to 
the  intellectual  sphere;  they  concerned  themselves 
only  about  morals,  the  lessons  of  which  are  con- 
tained in  the  Bible  better  than  in  any  other  book. 
This  predominance  of  morals  over  dogma  may  be 
called  the  essential  characteristic  of  Pietism, 
provided  we  keep  in  mind  that  we  are  speaking 
of  a  pious  system  of  morals  the  upholders  of 
which  were  voluntarily  and  socially  attached  to 
Christianity. 

It  is  from  Germany  that  Pietism  penetrated  into 
Roman  Switzerland;  there  it  affected,  more  or 
less,  the  strictly  Calvinistic  orthodoxy  of  Geneva, 
the  Protestant  Rome.  Masson  thought  the  ideas 
of  Madame  de  Guyon  an  adaptation  of  Pietism 
upon  French  soil ;  it  would  have  been  connected 
with  Germany  through  Switzerland.  However, 
the  Moyen  Court  of  Madame  de  Guyon  had  a 
particular  flavor;  it  was  still  sufficiently  imbued 
vdth  Catholicism  to  deceive  Fenelon.  But  it  is, 
at  any  rate,  from  Germany  that  sentimentalism, 
what  was  known  as  "  the  theology  of  the  heart,  " 
came  to  France.  .  Rousseau,  who  was  repelled  by 
Calvinistic  orthodoxy,  and  who  possessed  a  remnant 
of  Latin  logic  notwithstanding  his  yielding  to  a 
predominant  sentimentality,  carried  Pietism  to 
its  consequences;  the  Gospel  "  spoke  to  his  heart  " 
and  he  retained  hardly  more  than  ''the  holiness  of 
the  Gospel,  "  a  sincere  admiration  for  the  person 
and  for  the  moral  doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ  together 
with  an  uneasy  and  inconstant  ardor  for  perfection, 
such  as  he  understood  it. 


THE  ACCUSATION  OF  IMPOSTURE       101 

Now  whilst  Protestantism,  driven  from  France 
as  a  religious  community,  came  back  to  it  in  such 
a  rationahstic  form  as  to  arouse  protests  from  the 
very  attenuated  Calvinism  of  the  time,  the  influence 
of  France  and  England  was  winning  in  Germany 
adherents  to  a  radical  hostility  to  Gliristianity. 

It  is  in  England  that  Deism  was  born.  The 
French  precursors  counted  for  little;  the  work  of 
Bodin  1  was  never  printed.  It  occurred  to  no  one 
in  France  that  Descartes,  with  his  imperious  need 
of  seeing  clearly  in  all  things,  tended  to  make  reason 
the  supreme  judge  of  behef.  And  Bacon  had 
already  enunciated  the  principle  that  "  the  only 
authority  is  reason  enlightened  by  experience  ."  ^ 
It  remained  to  be  said  openly  that  reason  sufficed 
to  found  a  religion,  a  natural,  very  simple  rehgion, 
which  all  men  might  and  should  embrace.  This 
step  was  taken  by  Edward,  Lord  Herbert  of  Cher- 
bury,  whom  Father  Vigouroux  rightly  regards  as 
the  father  of  Deism.  He  taught  in  1626,  at  the 
very  time  Descartes  was  publishing  his  Discourse 
on  Method,  that  there  exists  a  supreme  God,  that 
He  must  be  the  object  of  a  worship.  He  appeared 
thus  to  establish  a  religion,  that  is  to  say,  a  bond 
between  God  and  man;  but  he  immediately  severed 
any  visible  tie  between  them  and  at  the  same  time 
all  union  between  Deists,  by  restricting  this  worship 
to  virtue  and  piety.  And,  though  he  did  not  say 
where  the  norm  of  right  and  wrong  might  be  found, 

1.  Colloquium  \TJZ(/.'!zko'j\xzoz^  de  ahditis  rerum  sublimium 
arcanis. 

2.  LiARD.  Descartes. 


102  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

he  encouraged  the  practice  of  what  was  right  and 
the  avoidance  of  what  was  wrong,  by  upholding 
behef  in  the  rewards  and  the  punishments  of  the 
future  Ufe. 

In  time  (it  took  a  long  time)  people  perceived 
that  this  system  is  anything  but  a  reHgion.  For, 
as  I  shall  likely  have  occasion  to  repeat  frequently, 
a  religion  is,  of  its  nature,  a  social  institution. 
What  was  called  natural  religion  was  not,  then,  a 
religion;  it  was  the  philosophical  state  of  mind  of 
isolated  individuals  who  could  not  unite  in  any 
worship.  The  most  independent  critics  agree  with 
our  old  apologists  concerning  the  absolute  sterility 
of  this  form  of  religious  sentiment,  or  rather  of  this 
rational  conclusion  which  is  devoid  of  sentiment,  — 
except  in  so  far  as  it  is  a  survival  of  Christianity. 
The  comparative  method  allows  one  to  classify 
this  system  and  to  go  back  to  its  origins.  It  is  a 
manifestation  of  the  exaggerated  individualism 
which  issued  from  the  Platonic  Renaissance.  The 
genius  of  Plato  —  after  that  of  Socrates  —  recogni- 
zed the  aupreme  value  of  the  intelligence.  But 
no  sufficient  account  was  taken  of  the  nature  of  the 
human  inteUigence,  united  with  a  body,  and  devel- 
oping in  the  midst  of  a  society.  The  human 
monad,  or  more  simply  the  individual,  incontestably 
has  his  personal  destinies.  It  is  the  glory  of  Pla- 
tonism  to  have  emphasized  this  in  admirable 
language.  But  the  human  individual  is  born  in  a 
social  group  and  depends  on  it.  The  modern 
Deists,  unmindful  of  this  fact,  resolutely  placed  the 
individual  in  presence  of  God,  and  took  for  granted 
that  he  had  sufficient  power  to  know  and  serve 


THE    ACCUSATION    OF    IMPOSTURE  103 

Him.  Now,  without  perceiving  it,  they  attributed 
to  reason  what  their  reason  had,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
received  from  their  Christian  education.  They 
had  learned  from  the  Christian  faith  to  beheve  in  a 
personal  God,  in  the  immortal  soul,  in  justice 
making  itself  felt  after  this  life.  And  reason  can, 
indeed,  demonstrate  the  existence  and  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul ;  she  can  conclude  from  these  two 
notions  that  there  will  be  retribution  after  death. 
But  the  reason  of  individuals  does  not  always 
arrive  at  the  truths  which  reason  can  reach,  and 
the  convictions  upon  which  Deists  agree  scarcely 
ever  are  influential  except  when  they  are  trans- 
mitted in  a  society  and  guaranteed  by  divine 
authority.  While  excluding  revelation,  Deism 
claimed  to  retain  as  the  teaching  of  reason  what 
was  essential  in  the  ancient  faith,  and  since  it  did 
not  and  could  not  form  a  church  after  rejecting 
worship,  it  precludes  the  possibihty  of  transmitting 
these  essential  truths  which  reason  does  not  reach 
without  sustained  effort,  nor  without  a  minghng 
of  error.  Deism  cannot,  without  self-contradic- 
tion, form  even  a  family  religion,  since  the  auton- 
omy to  which  the  child  is  entitled  forbids  imposing 
belief  upon  him,  even  to  the  tenderness  of  a  mother's 
love. 

The  fortune  of  Deism  in  France  was  due  to 
Voltaire.  This  simphfied,  apparently  very  precise, 
religion  retained  threats  of  judgment  for  the 
rabble,  and  did  not  oblige  one  to  contact  with  the 
rabble;  in  this  it  suited  Voltaire.  Why  was  he 
more  rabid  against  the  sentimental  Deism  of  Rous- 
seau than  against  the  materialism  of  Holbach  or  of 


104  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

Helvidius?  Because  his  intransigent  rationalism 
could  not  bear  even  the  appearance  of  revelation. 
A  man  of  superficial  mind  and  unfeeling  heart,  he 
preferred  to  the  emotion  of  the  Gospel  the  mecha- 
nism of  the  Great  Glockmaker.  The  system  was 
simple  and  clear;  it  wa.s  absolutely  devoid  of 
religious  sentiment;  it  answered  in  France  to  that 
innate  taste  for  clear-cut  ideas  which  Descartes  had 
rendered  more  exacting;  and  it  did  not  go  counter 
to  science,  the  pretentions  of  which  were  ever  more 
arrogant.  At  the  time  people  might  think  that 
irritation  was  increased  by  the  fact  that  the  Vol- 
tairian polemics  met  in  France  the  Catholic  estab- 
lished rehgion;  but  we  have  in  our  day  seen  the 
same  sort  of  sectarian  violence  upheld  by  the 
government.  And  in  reality  governmental  protect 
tion  of  rehgion  did  not  prevent  the  public  diffusion 
of  the  moit  virulent  attacks  against  Jesus  Christ 
and  His  Gospel.  This  bitter  warfare  had  long  been 
carried  on  in  the  conversations  of  the  Philosophers, 
and  Rousseau,  disgusted  with  so  many  platitudes 
and  such  lack  of  understanding  of  the  heart,  had 
opposed  to  it  the  "  Profession  of  Faith  of  the 
Savoyard  Curate,  "  when  it  broke  out  with  fury 
in  1760. 

I  cannot  bring  myself  to  read  to  you  the  blas- 
phemies uttered  by  Voltaire  against  Our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  (He  did  not  speak  much  more 
favorably  of  the  French  nation.)  But  since  we 
are  here  deahng  with  the  meaning  of  Christianity, 
I  shall  quote  Voltaire's  friend  Desmarais,  who, 
in  1765,  pubhshed  his  "  Analysis  of  the  Christian 
Religion  "  :  "  This  proud  edifice  is  but  the  work 


THE    ACCUSATION    OF    IMPOSTURE  105 

•of  a  few  dishonest  and  ignorant  men,  who,  like  the 
founders  of  all  religions  of  the  earth,  took  advantage 
of  the  credulity  of  the  people,  to  plunge  it  into  the 
most  shameful  superstition.  "  -^ 

Boulanger,  in  his  "  Researches  concerning  the 
Origin  of  Oriental  Despotism,  "  had  already,  in 
1761,  attacked  human  errors,  priestly  impostures, 
popular  foUies.  ^  And  Voltaire  himself,  as  M.  Masson 
so  well  puts  it  "  beheved  himself  sufficiently 
equitable  if  he  recognized  that  in  all  great  rehgious 
enthusiasts,  there  was  perhaps  'good  faith'  in  their 
first  'dreamings,'  but  a  good  faith  which  finally 
ended  in  'necessary  imposture.'  "  ^ 

These  words  are  enough  to  characterize  the  tone 
of  the  Voltairian  polemic  against  the  Sacred  Books, 
which  were  judged  by  Voltaire  ( !)  to  be  shameless 
books. 

II.     Lessing  and   Reimarus 

PROPOSE  TO  Germany  the  Deistic  explanation 

OF  Christianity. 

Is  it  not  strange  that  these  unreasonable  insults, 
the  most  outrageous  ever  made  against  our  divine 
Lord,  should  have,  come  from  Deism,  —  a  poor 
remnant  of  Christianity,  —  and  from  thinkers  who 
beheved  themselves  the  organs  of  Reason?  But 
we  have  not  to  examine  here  caviUings  and  coarse 
jests  which  disfigure  French  literature.     It  is  in 

1.  In  Masson,  III,  p.  15. 

2.  Masson,  III,  p.  25/t 

3.  Masson,  III,  p.  22. 


106  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

Germany  that  we  must  study  the  activities  of 
Deism.  On  its  arrival  from  France,  it  drew  from 
his  dreamy  mysticism  the  Hght-souled  Wieland. 
But  that  which  really  gave  it  force  in  its  new 
surroundings,  was  that  it  there  found  what  it  had 
not  in  France,  an  adept  who  had  gone  deeply  into 
the  study  of  the  New  Testament,  the  orientalist 
Reimarus  ^,  and,  moreover,  a  publisher  who  was 
capable  of  wielding  with  dexterity  what  might 
otherwise  have  appeared  to  the  public  only  com- 
plicated erudition,  Lessing,  the  leading  philosopher 
and  man  of  letters  in  Germany  at  the  beginning 
of  the  classical  period.  ^ 

Comparisons  are  misleading.  Nevertheless  I  see 
no  better  way  to  introduce  Lessing  to  French 
readers  than  to  compare  him  with  Voltaire.  The 
German  Voltaire,  it  is  generally  said,  is  Henry 
Heine;  but  the  emotion  and  the  dreaminess  which 
mingle  with  the  scepticism  of  this  German  Jew 
are  sufficient  to  make  the  comparison  unsatisfac- 
tory. Lessing  is  more  like  the  French  scoffer. 
Like  Voltaire  he  lacks  feehng  and  true  poetry. 
Like  Voltaire  he  brought  philosophic  discussion 
into  the  drama.  It  is  true  that  he  had  not  Vol- 
taire's hghtness   of  touch.     He   made   over  into 


J.  Hermann  Samuel  Reimarus,  born  Dec.  22,  1694  at 
Hamburg,  where  he  was  professor  of  Oriental  Languages, 
died  in  1768. 

2.  Gotthold  Ephraim  Lessing,  born  Jan.  22,  1729  at 
Gamenz  in  Lusatia,  died  at  Brunswick,  Feb.  15,  1781.  He 
is  here  quoted  according  to  Lessing's  Sdmmtliche  Werke, 
herausgegeben  von  Richard  Gosche,  Berlin,  1882,  8  vol. 
in-80. 


THE  ACCUSATIO^'  OF  IMPOSTURE       107 

methodically  arranged  little  apologues  the  fables 
of  Lafontaine.  But  he  is  enamored  of  free  thought 
and  the  rights  of  reason,  and,  as  does  the  friend  of 
Frederick  II,  he  "  willingly  dispenses  with  patrio- 
tism. "  ^  However,  he  is  a  behever  in  German 
Kultur,  to  the  point  of  declaring  that  there  is  no 
French  dramatic  literature,  especially  no  tragedy;  ^ 
and  he  is  deeply  German  in  his  unconcern  about 
objective  certitude.  Voltaire  held  to  Deism. 
Lessing  holds  especially  to  being  free  to  seek.  His 
words  in  Eine  Duplik  have  often  been  cited  :  "  If 
God  with  all  truth  in  His  right  hand,  and  in  His 
left  the  single,  unceasing,  striving  after  truth,  even 
though  coupled  with  the  condition  that  I  should 
ever  and  always  err,  came  to  me  and  said,  'Choose', 
I  would  in  all  humility  clasp  His  left  hand  and 
say,  'Father,  give  me  this,  is  not  pure  truth  for 
thee  alone  ?'  "  ^ 

This  was  not  merely  a  whim.     One  of  Lessing's 
editors  —  an  admirer  —  sees  herein  the  device  of 


1.  Letters  to  Gleim,  t.  VIII,  p.  174  :  "  I  have  no  idea  of 
love  of  country  (I  am  sorry  to  have  to  confess  what  you  will 
perhaps  regard  as  shameful),  and  it  seems  to  me  to  be  at 
most  an  heroic  weakness,  with  which  I  willingly  dispense.  " 

2.  Ich  denke  namlich  dabei...  dass  auch  die  Franzosen 
kein  Theater  haben.  It  is  true  that  frightened  by  his 
audacity,  he  adds  :  kein  tragisches  gewiss  nicht  [Ham- 
hurgische  Dramaturgie)  I  But  Corneille  and  Racine  are  still 
forgotten ! 

3.  Wenn  Gott  in  seiner  Rechten  alle  Wahrheit  und  in 
seiner  Linken  den  einzigen  immer  regen  Trieb  nach  Wahr- 
heit, obschon  mit  dem  Zusatze,  mich  immer  und  ewig  zu 
irren,  verschlossen  hielte  und  sprache  zu  mir  :  «  Wahle !  » 
ich  fiele  ihm  mit  Demuth  in  seine  Linke  und  sagte  :  «  Vater, 
gieb  I  die  reine  Wahrheit  ist  ja  doch  nur  fiir  dich  allein  !  » 
Eine  Duplik,  t.  VII,  pp.  286  f. 


108  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

his  whole  hfe.  It  might  well  be  that  of  his  country^ 
French  tact  would  have  omitted  the  words,  "  Even 
though  coupled  with  the  condition  that  I  should 
ever  and  always  err,  "  for  what  can  a  search  for 
truth  be  that  is  condemned  to  reach  only  error  ?  It 
i&  indifference  associated  by  a  strange  contradiction 
with  passionate  glow ;  it  is  research  for  the  sake  of 
research;  the  aimless  turning  of  a  treadmill,  the 
Sisyphus-like  task  of  forever  rolling  to  the  top 
of  a  steep  hill  a  stone  that  always  rolls  down  again. 
We  may  now  understand  Lessing's  attitude  towards 
Christianity.  That  of  Voltaire  is  more  clearly 
definable  :  it  was  pure  hypocrisy.  He  went  to 
communion  at  Easter  to  keep  out  of  trouble  with 
the  police,  and  that  at  a  time  when  the  police  was 
inclined  to  let  delinquinc^^  in  such  matters  go 
unnoticed.  Lessing,  on  certain  days,  upheld 
Protestant  orthodoxy.  He  maintained,  with  Leib- 
nitz, the  eternity  of  punishment;  he  defended  the 
dogma  of  the  Trinity  against  the  Socinians.  In 
this  —  whatever  his  panegyrists  may  say  —  he 
certainly  was  not  sincere.  He  put  himself  forward 
as  the  defender  of  the  old  dogmas  simply  because 
the  old  dogmatic  system,  which  he  regarded  as 
powerless,  was  less  distasteful  to  him  than  a 
rejuvenated  Christianity,  which  might  become 
threatening.  There  is  in  his  position  something 
of  the  attitude  of  the  Maximalists  of  the  left,  who 
support  the  Maximalists  of  the  right,  in  politics 
or  in  religion.  Lessing  seems  to  me  to  have 
expressed  his  whole  mind  in  a  letter  to  his  brother, 
in  which  he  was  all  the  more  frank  because  he  felt 
free  to  indulge  in  a  bit  of  coarseness. 


THE  ACCUSATION  OF  IMPOSTURE       109 

The  old  orthodoxy  is  "  dirty  water,  "  but  modern 
theology  is  "  liquid  manure.  "  "  We  are  agreed 
on  the  point  that  our  old  religious  system  is  false,  " 
but  at  least  it  is  not  like  the  new  system,  a  patch- 
work produced  by  bunghng  half-philosophers.  Up 
to  the  present,  there  has  been  a  partition  between 
reUgion  and  philosophy.  Each  has  kept  to  its 
own  department.  Now,  "  under  pretext  of  making 
of  us  reasonable  Christians,  they  make  of  us 
altogether  irrational  philosophers.  "  ^ 

There  is  some  truth  in  the  words.  Haphazard 
compromises  between  faith  and  the  opinions  of 
the  hour  —  such  as  is  Modernism  —  are  no  more 
congenial  to  reason  than  to  faith.  But  Lessing's 
words  make  it  clear  that  his  adhesion  to  Protestant 
orthodoxy  w^as  a  simple  matter  of  opportunism. 
Christianity,  to  the  historical  titles  of  which  he 
did  not  do  justice,  appeared  to  him  as  the  necessary 
school  of  the  moral  truths.  "  Whether  the  legend 
be  true  or  false,  "  he  said,  "  the  fruits  are  good.  " 
And,  here  again  very  different  from  Voltaire,  Lessing 
resolutely  defended  morals,  morals  binding  on 
everybody,  and  not  only  on  common  people.  It 
is  for  this  reason  that  he  has  been  regarded,  though 
wTongly,  as  the  father  of  liberal  Protestantism. 
He  leaned  much  more  towards  Deism  and  even, 
at  the  end  of  his  life,  towards  Pantheism.  He 
looked  upon  Christianity  as  a  provisional  form  of 
religion,  destined  to  disappear,  rather  than  as 
indefinitely  perfectible.  He  did  not  deny  that  the 
biblical  teaching  has.  been  in  the  designs  of  God  a 

1.  Letter  of  Feb.  2,  1774,  t.  VIII,  pp.  479  ss.      ( 


110  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

sort  of  education  for  the  human  race;  but  he  held 
that  henceforth  reason  was  sufficient  by  itself,  at 
least  for  clever  people.  But,  nevertheless,  oscil- 
lating once  more,  instead  of  appealing  to  pure 
reason  in  preaching  the  law  of  love,  he  evoked 
the  testament  of  St.  John,  "  My  little  children, 
love  one  another.  " 

Such  was,  as  I  understand  it,  the  mind,  — 
uneasy,  agitated,  solicitous  about  moral  preserva- 
tion, but  dominated  by  a  passion  for  free  inquiry,  — 
which  dared  to  propose  to  Germany  the  Deist 
explanation  of  Christianity. 

Lessing  did  not,  however,  assume  full  responsi- 
bility for  the  system.  He  employed  the  rather 
discreditable  manoeuver  of  publishing  as  an 
ancient  work  by  an  unknown  author  well-selected 
passages  of  a  voluminous  attack  on  the  religion  of 
Christ  by  a  celebrated  orientalist,  Hermann  Samuel 
Reimarus,  who  had  died  at  Hamburg  in  1768.  The 
book  was  called  an  "  Apology  for  the  reasonable 
Worshippers  of  God.  "  ^  The  manuscript,  of  four 
thousand  quarto  pages,  is  still  preserved  in  the 
library  of  Hamburg.  No  admirer  has  been  able  to 
secure  the  pubhcation  of  the  whole  work.  The 
author  seems  to  have  foreseen,  more  clearly  than 
Lessing,  the  harm  his  apology  for  the  Deists  was 
apt  to  do  Christian  consciences.  It  was  the 
realization  of  this  danger  to  others  that  caused 
him  to  refrain  from  giving  it  to  the  public;  he 
expressed  in  his  preface  the  wish  that  it  be  known 
only  to  a  few  persons. 


1.  Apologie  oder  Schutzschrift  fiir  die  verniinftigen  Verekrer 
Gottes, 


THE  ACCUSATION  OF  IMPOSTURE       111 

He  was  —  we  may  be  sure  —  restrained  by  no 
reverence  for  the  cause  he  assailed ;  he  was  animated 
by  real  hatred  of  Christianity,  a  characteristic,  as 
we  have  seen  in  France,  of  the  more  convinced 
upholders  of  natural  religion.  It  is  probable  that 
Lessing  never  knew  Reimarus  personally;  but 
Reimarus'  daughter,  Eliza,  whom  he  knew, 
communicated  to  him  the  most  important  parts 
of  the  treatise.  As  librarian  to  the  Duke  of 
Brunswick,  at  Wolfenbiittel,  he  was  not  subject  to 
censorhip  when  he  published  the  manuscripts  of 
the  Wolfenbiittel  collection;  so  ii  was  as  a  Wolfen- 
biittel fragment  that  he  gave  out,  in  1774,  a  first 
selection  of  Reimarus'  book.  He  not  only  claimed 
to  have  found  it  in  his  library,  but,  to  avert  suspi- 
cion, he  said  that  the  paper  had  probably  been 
written  about  thirty  years  before,  and  possibly  by 
a  certain  Schmidt,  who  died  at  Wolfenbiittel  in 
1749.  ^  This  preface  reveals  a  mediocre  care  for 
truth. 

The  first  fragment,  entitled  "  Tolerance  due  to 
the  Deists,  "  did  not  produce  much  of  a  sensation. 
More  emotion  was  manifested  on  the  appearance  of 
the  five  fragments  which  followed  in  1777  :  first, 
"  Of  the  Declamations  of  the  Pulpit  against  Rea- 
son ";  second,  "  Of  the  Impossibility  of  a  Revela- 
tion to  which  all  men  can  accord  sohd  Faith  "; 
third,  "  That  the  Books  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
not  written  to  reveal  a  Religion  ";  fourth,  "  Re- 
marks on  the  Grossing  of  the  Red  Sea  by  the 
Hebrews  " ;  fifth,  "The  Story  of  the  Resurrection.  " 
The  scandal  reached  its  height  when  there  appeared 

1.  Vol.  VII,  p.  116. 


112  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

in  1778  the  last  fragment  of  the  unknown,   "  Of 
the  Design  of  Jesus  and  of  His  Disciples.  " 

These  facts  are  very  well  known.  They  have 
been  set  forth  by  Father  Vigouroux,  with  his  usual 
exactitude,  in  "  The  Holy  Books  and  Rationalistic 
Criticism.  "  ^  But  people  do  not  agree  concerning 
the  value  of  Reimarus'  elucidations.  According 
to  Father  Vigouroux,  "  Many  false  and  impious 
explanations  of  the  life  of  the  divine  Savior  have 
indeed  been  discovered,  but  nothing  more  odious 
or  more  miserable  has  ever  been  imagined  than  the 
explanation  of  Reimarus.  "  ^  Strauss,  of  whom 
we  shall  speak  later,  regarded  Reimarus  as  a  pre- 
cursor. In  the  book  which  he  consecrated  to  him 
in  1860,  "  he  contrasts  the  thoroughly  German 
attitude  of  Reimarus  with  the  French  manner, 
which  he  finds  more  witty  than  serious;  he  even 
ventures  to  prefer  German  silence  to  the  French 
grimace.  "  ^  Schweitzer  is  still  more  enthu- 
siastic :  "  This  writing  is  not  only  one  of  the 
greatest  events  in  the  history  of  the  critical  sf)irit; 
it  is  at  the  same  time  a  masterpiece  of  the  world 
literature.  "  He  adds  :  "  Seldom  has  hatred  been 
so  eloquent;  seldom  has  derision  been  so  magnifi- 
cent; but  seldom,  too,  has  a  work  been  written  in 
the  justified  consciousness  of  so  absolute  a  supe- 
riority over  the  views  of  the  time.  "  *  We  do  not 
wholly    understand    what    magnificent    derision 


1.  Third  ed.,  vol.  II,  pp.  404  iT. 

2.  lb.  p.  418. 

3.  David-Frederic  Strauss,  by  A.  Levy,  p.  197,  note  %. 

4.  Schweitzer,  p.  15. 


THE    ACCUSATION    OF    IMPOSTURE  113 

{grossartiger  Holm)  may  be;  and  we  doubt  whether 
Reimarus  or  any  other  German  has  equaled  the 
bitter  irony  of  Pascal  or  the  mahgnant  finesse  of 
Voltaire.  ^  But  we  must  grant  that  Reimarus 
was  no  more  odious  than  our  own  Deists;  and  it 
must  be  said  to  his  credit  that  he  absta:n3d,  in 
regard  to  the  Apostles,  from  manifestly  injurious 
epithets.  He  leaves  it  for  the  reader  to  draw  his 
own  conclusion.  Though  this  conclusion  can  be,  in 
the  mind  of  Reimarus,  only  a  condemnation,  and 
though  he  carefully  prepares  the  verdict  that  Chris- 
tianity is  the  result  of  an  imposture,  we  can  feel 
grateful  to  him  for  not  being  satisfied  with  epigrams 
and  facetiousness.  He  tried  to  show  that  the 
imposture  with  which  he  charged  Jesus  and  His 
Apostles  was  intelligible  in  their  historical  cir- 
cumstances; it  is  by  this  attention  to  history  that 
he  was  really  ahead  of  his  times.  Voltaire  rejected 
Christianity  in  the  name  of  reason;  Rousseau  was 
touched  to  the  heart  by  its  holy  morals.  Neither 
of  them  studied  it  as  it  appeared  in  its  historical 
setting.  Reimarus  understood  that  he  had  to 
take  its  surroundings  into  account  in  working  out 
his  system.  This  system  we  shall  briefly  sketch. 
Jesus  claimed  to  be  the  Messias,  and  His  disciples 
preached   Him  as   such.     What   did   people  then 


1.  Heinrich,  III,  370  :  "  Everything  seems  heavy  in  Ger- 
many, men,  things,  and  the  language  itself.  That  does  not 
exclude  either  force  or  grandeur,  but  it  prohibits  that  light 
mockery  which  is  allowed  only  to  supple  and  nimble  minds 
like  ours...  To  raise  the  heavy  covering  which  a  complicated 
language  has  put  over  their  mind,  the  Germans  have  only 
two  powerful  levers,  mysticism  and  fancy.  " 


114  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

think  of  the  Messias?  The  Gospel  does  not  say. 
One  must,  then,  seek  elsewhere  for  the  idea  the 
Jews  had  of  him.  The  study  of  contemporaneous 
Jewish  literature  reveals  two  sorts  of  messianism. 
The  greater  number  followed  the  old  tradition, 
and  closely  connected  the  Messias  with  the  pohtical 
restoration  of  Israel.  The  expected  Messias  was 
to  be  a  second  David,  a  victorious  king  ,who  would 
deliver  his  people  from  the  power  of  the  Romans 
and  give  it  back  prosperity  with  independence. 
Jesus  had  this  political  conception.  Believing 
Himself  the  Messias,  he  tried  to  draw  the  people 
into  rebellion.  He  proposed  indeed,  to  better  the 
moral  hfe  of  the  Jews;  but  He  brought  no  new 
religious  idea.  His  ideal  was  the  practice  of  the 
Law,  better  understood.  He  thought  only  of  the 
Jews,  whose  king  He  hoped  to  become.  He  used 
dissimulation,  both  by  interpreting  the  texts  of  the 
Old  Testament  in  His  own  favor,  and  by  false 
miracles  destined  to  seduce  the  crowd.  Les 
distrustful  of  the  crowd  than  Renan,  ^  Reimarus 


1.  "  Let  a  wonder-worker  present  himself  to-morrow 
with  sufficiently  serious  credentials  to  deserve  discussion; 
let  him  announce  himself  able,  say,  to  raise  a  dead  man. 
What  would  be  done?  A  commission  composed  of  physiol- 
ogists, of  physicians,  of  chemists,  of  persons  experienced 
in  historical  criticism,  would  be  named.  This  commission 
would  choose  the  corpse,  assure  itself  that  the  death  was 
real,  designate  the  hall  where  the  experiment  was  to  be 
made,  regulate  the  whole  system  of  precautions  necessary 
to  leave  no  chance  for  doubt.  "  M.  Victor  Giraud  (Revue 
des  Deux  Mondes,  March.  1,  1918)  has  recalled  that  the 
exigencies  of  Renan  had  been  formulated  by  Voltaire 
"  It  would  be  desirable,  that  a  miracle  might  be  well  verified, 
that  it  were  performed  in  presence  of  the  Paris  Academy  of 
Sciances,  or  the  London  Royal  Society,  and  of  the  faculty 


THE    ACCUSATION    OF    IMPOSTURE  115 

thus  lays  down  the  conditions  of  a  miracle  which 
might  be  accepted  as  genuine  :  "  If  one  single 
miracle  had  been  WTOught  by  Jesus  publicly,  in  a 
convincing  and  undeniable  w^ay,  before  the  whole 
multitude  on  one  of  the  festival  days,  men  are  so 
made  that  all  would  have  yielded  Him  alle- 
giance. " 

The  Hamburg  orientahst  cannot,  however,  deny 
that  the  healings  of  Jesus  were  real  miracles  in  the 
eyes  of  His  contemporaries;  that  they  stirred  up 
their  imagination.  Jesus,  he  tells  us,  thought  He 
w^as  about  to  realize  His  ambition  when  He 
mounted  the  ass,  to  fulfil  the  prophecy  of  Zacharias. 
The  people  cried  Hosanna  to  the  son  of  David. 
But  when  the  grand  council,  feeling  itself  menaced, 
took  the  necessary  steps,  Jesus  died,  abandoned  by 
all  and  believing  Himself  abandoned  by  God. 

Not  much  genius  w^as  required  to  explain  things 
in  this  w^ay ;  but  it  was  evidently  not  an  explanation 
of  the  origin  of  Christianity,  since  all  ended  on  the 
gibbet.  In  the  system  of  Reimarus,  the  new 
religion  begins  only  after  the  death  of  Jesus,  and  it 
is  here  that  a  second  aspect  of  messianism  inter- 
vei^es. 

Since  the  prophecy  of  Daniel,  the  Jew^s  expected 
directly  from  heaven  their  dehverance  and  their 
empire,  with  the  person  of  the  Messias.  A  super- 
natural being,  manifested  upon  the  clouds,  the  Son 


of  Medicine,  assisted  by  a  detachment  of  the  guard,  to  hold 
back  the  people  who  might,  by  their  indiscretion,  prevent 
the  performance  of  the  miracle.  "  (Dictionnaire  Philoso- 
phique,  article  Miracles).  —  In  both  texts  we  find  the  same 
insolence,  but  Voltaire  is  less  pedantic  and  less  heavy. 


116  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

of  Man,  was  to  appear  in  the  glory  of  God.  This 
heavenly  existence  and  this  lightning-like  appari- 
tion might  be  combined  with  the  concept  of  the 
Messias,  the  son  of  David  :  why  not  suppose  that, 
after  a  human  existence,  the  Messias  would  have  a 
second,  glorious  coming? 

This  hypothesis,  which  Reimarus  wrongly  takes 
to  be  an  opinion  of  the  time,  was,  he  tells  us,  a 
flash  of  hght  and  salvation  for  the  Apostles.  They 
were  completely  discouraged  at  first  by  the  passion 
and  the  death  of  the  Master ;  but  it  seemed  to  them 
too  hard  to  renounce  a  dream  of  glory  and  to  take 
up  again  their  painful  occupations.  The  friends 
of  the  Messias  had  lost  their  taste  for  work  during 
their  wanderings.  They  had  found  by  experience 
that  the  preaching  of  the  kingdom  of  God  feeds  the 
preachers.  Sent  forth  by  their  Master  without 
purse  or  scrip,  they  had  wanted  for  nothing. 
Charitable  women  had  provided  for  their  support. 
Others  would  be  found.  Why  should  they  not,  to 
continue  such  a  life,  attempt  a  sHght-of-hand  trick? 
They  stole  the  body  of  Jesus,  hid  it,  and  announced 
that  He  was  risen  and  that  He  would  come  again 
soon.  Prudently,  they  allowed  fifty  days  to  pass 
before  making  this  declaration,  in  order  that 
the  corpse,  if  it  were  found,  might  not  be  identi- 
fied. 

If  there  had  then  been  at  Jerusalem  a  system  of  po- 
lice worthy  of  the  name,  the  Disciples  could  not  have 
perpetrated  the  fraud  nor  set  up  a  community.  But 
the  pohce  force  of  Jerusalem  was  really  asleep. 
They  did  not  stir  even  when  Ananias  and  Saphira, 
who  had  gone  to  the  Apostles,  came  out  of  their 


THE    ACCUSATION    OF    IMPOSTURE  117 

house  only  to  be  buried,  and  when  the  nascent 
community  seized  their  goods !  ^ 

It  is  assuredly  piquant  to  maintain  that  Christi- 
anity would  not  exist,  if  only  the  poHce  had  better 
attended  to  its  duty ;  but  the  pohce  was  not  really 
altogether  deserving  of  these  reproaches,  and  if  it 
'  was  at  first  a  Httle  neghgent,  eventually  it  so  acted 
as  to  convince  the  Apostles  that  all  was  not  sun- 
shin?  in  the  preaching  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 

They  persevered,  however,  Reimarus  goes  on, 
and  easily  deceived  simple  souls,  both  by  promising 
the  estabhshment  of  the  temporal  reign  in  the  near 
future  and  by  representing  Jesus'  death  as  a  means 
of  deliverance  from  sin.  Their  imposture  is  contin- 
ued in  our  day  by  the  hypocritical  art  of  the 
theologians.  These  theologians  know  very  well 
that  the  coming  of  Jesus  was  foretold  for  the  first 
Christian  generation  and  that  this  coming  never 
took  place.  Here  we  have  the  whole  case.  Chris- 
tianity was  founded  upon  deceit,  and  it  still  rests 
upon  a  conscious  lie. 


III.     The  Deistig  portrait  of  Jesus  and  the 
Apostles  satisfies  no   one. 

By  this  view  concerning  the  prophecy  of  the 
last  things,  the  system  elaborated  in  the  xviii 
century  anticipates  the  so-called  eschatological 
explanation,  which  we  shall  take  up  in  its  turn. 

1.  Acts,  V,  1-11. 


118  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

This  is  what  explains  the  enthusiasm  of  Mr.  Schweit- 
zer. To-day  we  shall  judge  only  the  system  proper 
to  Reimarus.  And  it  may  be  said  that  ii  has 
already  been  condemned,  and  finally,  by  all  the 
exegetes  of  Germany.  It  is  probably  on  account 
of  this  detestable  accusation  of  imposture  that  the 
name  Deist  is  in  such  bad  odor  in  that  country. 

Reimarus'  exegesis  was  very  new,  and  neverthe- 
less, by  its  narrowness,  it  resembles  the  exegesis  of 
Luther.  But  whilst  the  heresiarch's  conception 
of  Christianity  was  determined  by  the  needs  of  his 
own  uneasy  soul,  Reimarus  was  able  to  construct 
a  system  more  historical  in  appearance.  Lessing 
has  a  reflection  which  naturally  recurs  in  this 
connection  :  "  We  Germans  do  not  lack  systematic 
books.  Just  give  us  a  few  verbal  explanations, 
and  we  can  draw  therefrom  anything  we  like.  In 
this  we  are  more  expert  than  any  other  nation  in 
the  world.  "  ^  In  Reimarus'  case,  however,  the 
attempt  to  explain  Christianity  on  the  theory  of  a 
conscious  imposture  on  the  part  of  Jesus  and  of  His 
Apostles  was  not  the  indulgence  of  an  uninformed 
imagination.  He  dehberately  studied  the  whole 
Gospel  and  explained  it  all  on  the  hypothesis  of 
•  deliberate  fraud. 

How  could  this  learned  investigator  of  texts 
spend  long  hours  in  reading  and  re-reading  the 
words  of  our  adorable  Savior  without  beiiig  touched 
by  the  incomparable  moral  beauty  of  His  soul? 
How  could  he  fail  to  perceive  the  evident  ingenu- 
ousness of  the  Apostles,  and  the  tone  of  absolute 

1.  Laocooji,  preface.* 


THE  ACCUSATION  OF  IMPOSTURE       119 

sincerity  which  characterizes  their  words?  No 
Hellenist  was  ever  so  stupid  as  to  charge  the 
Antigone  of  Sophocles  with  duplicity.  But  this 
ideal  of  the  human  being  who  exposes  himself  to 
death  for  duty's  sake,  was  reahty  in  the  Apostles. 
They  were  simple  and  straightforward,  ready  to 
die  for  their  convictions.  And  they  are  accused 
of  steahng  a  corpse  in  order  thereafter  to  hve  upon 
pubhc  credulity ! 

Such  a  charge  could  only  come  from  a  grovelling 
soul.  A  Deist  should  have  understood  that  to 
revile  such  saints  is  to  blaspheme  against  God. 
Strauss,  even,  has  understood  that  divine  morals 
are  incompatible  with  the  more  than  equivocal 
conduct  attributed  to  Jesus  and  His  disciples. 
Criticism,  be  it  said  to  its  credit,  has  given  up  this 
hopeless  hypothesis.  When  critics  nowadays  refuse 
to  believe  with  the  first  Christians  that  the  Apostles 
saw  the  Risen  Lord,  they  admit,  at  least,  that  they 
thought  they  had  seen  Him.  Their  good  faith  is 
beyond  suspicion.  And  what  shall  we  say  of  their 
Master ! 

But  if  it  Were  necessary  to  examine  the  theory 
suggested  by  the  two  ideas  of  messianism,  it  would 
be  easy  to  show  that  Reimarus  wrongly  understood 
their  application.  It  is  very  long  after  the  Ascen- 
sion of  Jesus  and  the  spread  of  the  new  faith,  that 
we  meet  in  Jewish  writers  a  trace  of  the  concept 
that  the  Messias  was  to  come  twice,  once  in  lowli- 
ness and  a  second  time  in  glory.  And  absolutely  no 
one  before  Jesus,  at  least  as  far  as  we  know,  had 
found  the  secret  of  uniting  in  one  person  the  attri- 
butes of  a  suffering  and  glorious  Messias.    The 


120  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

Scripture  passages  which  predict  a  suffering 
Messias,  ^  had  not  been  understood.  ^  in  regard 
to  the  two  kinds  of  messianism  which  did  exist, 
each  with  its  characteristic  features  of  temporal 
glory  and  of  heavenly  glory,  awaiting  the  divine 
solution  which  facts  were  to  bring  about,  the 
evident  error  of  Reimarus  was  to  invert  the  situa- 
tions and  to  attribute  to  Jesus  the  ambition  to  play 
a  pohtical  part.  If  the  Gospel  deserves  any  credit 
at  all,  it  is  the  people  who  await  a  political  Messias ; 
even  the  Apostles  are  at  first  ambitious  to  reign 
with  Him;  Jesus,  for  His  part,  strives  to  raise  their 
hearts  to  higher  things,  towards  the  clear  atmos- 
phere of  the  love  of  God,  by  preaching  confidence 
in  Providence  and  charity  to  all,  even  enemies. 
Whence  had  this  Reimarus  drawn  hatred  for 
Christianity  so  bUnding  as  to  assign  to  the  disciples 
the  role  of  the  Savior  and  to  the  Savior  the  role 
of  the  disciples,  in  spite  of  history? 

The  XVIII  century,  more  capable  of  bold, 
impudent  philosophical  negations  than  of  historical 
reconstruction,  felt  nevertheless  that  Reimarus' 
attack  was  unjust.  It  recognized  in  this  charge  of 
fraud  stayed  up  by  a  false  theory  of  history,  a 
deliberately  sacrilegious  attack.  The  scandal  was 
very  great;  but  such  sensations  do  not  always 
serve  as  a  means  to  propagate  evil. 

The  refutation  of  the  system  came  from  two 
sides.  The  so-called  scientific  theology,  that  is, 
the  compromise  between  orthodoxy  and  a  very 

1.  In  particular  Isaias,  lii,  13-15  and  liii. 

2.  On  the  suffering  Messias,  unknown  to  ancient  Judaism, 
see  Le  Messianisme  chez  les  Juifs  (150  B.  G.  —  200  A.  D.), 
by  the  present  author,  pp.  236  ff. 


THE  ACCUSATION  OF  IMPOSTURE       121 

advanced  type  of  criticism,  was  represented  by 
Semler  (1725-1791).  This  Halle  professor,  then 
illustrious,  took  up  for  refutation  one  after  the 
other  the  affirmations  of  Reimarus,  as  Origen  had 
done  in  the  case  of  Celsus.  He  reproached  him 
with  having  failed  to  do  justice  to  the  spiritual 
character  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  the  scholars 
of  Germany  agreed  with  him,  Reimarus,  who 
had  no  precursor,  had  no  disciples. 

It  was  natural  enough  that  Lessing  should  have 
come  in  for  his  share  in  the  attacks  against  Reima- 
rus. Goetze,  the  first  pastor  of  Hamburg,  was 
then  on  very  good  terms  with  him;  their  common 
friends  saw  the  source  of  this  intimacy  in  the 
excellent  red  wine  of  the  good  ecclesiastic.  The 
publication  of  the  anonymous  fragments  had  the 
earmarks  of  a  sly  attack.  Goetze  took  up  the 
defence  of  the  Bible  against  the  Unknown.  Les- 
sing himself  was  supposed  to  be  the  author  of  the 
Fragments ;  at  the  very  least  he  had  assumed  very 
grave  responsibility.  The  pastor  was  not  suffi- 
ciently well  equipped  for  the  encounter,  it  must  be 
admitted.  But  I  cannot  tolerate  the  comparison 
of  Lessing's  anti-Goetze  writings  to  the  Provinciales 
of  Pascal.  Pascal  was  mistaken,  but  he  was  in 
good  faith.  Was  Lessing  even  serious  when  he 
affirmed  —  very  solemnly,  indeed  —  that  he  had 
been  actuated  by  a  desire  to  provoke  a  refutation 
of  Reimarus  ?  The  good  apostle  found  it  impossible 
to  remain  under  the  same  roof  with  the  Unknown  ^ ! 


1.  Semler  has  dealt  with  Lessing's  case  in  a  pretty  good 
apologue  :  "  Before  the  Lord  Mayor  of  London,  a  man  was 
accused  of  starting  a  fire.  He  was  seen  coming  out  of  the 
basement  of  the  burning  house.     'I  came,'  said  he,  '  into  the 


122  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

He  hoped  some  one  would  answer  his  difficulties 
and  deliver  him  of  his  perplexity!  For  the  rest, 
the  work  was  rash,  too  noisy  for  Lessing's  taste, 
and  at  any  rate  premature.  Christianity  had 
good  in  it,  as  a  provisional  system;  one  should  not 
give  it  up  too  soon.  It  should  have  at  least  the 
benefit  of  the  doubt.  It  is  doubt  that  Lessing 
wished  to  arouse ;  he  did  no^  desire  an  adhesion  to 
too  raw  a  negation. 

We  can  sympathize  somewhat  with  Lessing 
when  he  points  out,  with  malicious  pleasure,  the 
contradictions  in  v/hich  the  Lutheran  exegetes 
were  involved  :  "  If,  sir  ",  he  says  to  the  principal 
pastor  of  Hamburg,  "  you  carry  things  to  the  point 
where  our  Lutheran  pastors  become  our  popes, 
prescribe  when  we  are  to  leave  off  studying  Scrip- 
ture, limit  our  researches  and  the  publication  of 
what  we  have  found,  then  I  shall  be  the  first  to 
change  our  little  popes  for  the  Pope  ^.  " 

And  perhaps,  indeed,  he  might  have  accepted 
the  authority  of  the  Pope  after  the  manner  of 

granary  of  my  neighbor,  and  I  found  a  lighted  candle  which 
the  domestics  had  carelessly  left  there.  It  would  have  burned 
down  to  the  floor  during  the  night  and  set  fire  to  the  staircase. 
That  the  fire  might  break  out  in  the  day  time,  I  threw  a 
little  straw  over  the  flame.  The  fire  was  at  once  seen  coming 
out  of  a  dormer-window;  the  firemen  rushed  to  the  scene,  and 
the  fire,  that  would  have  been  dangerous  during  the  night, 
was  immediately  extinguished.  '  Why  ',  asked  the  Lord 
Mayor,  '  did  you  not  blow  out  the  candle  ?  '  '  If  I  had,  the 
domestics  would  not  have  become  more  prudent.  But 
after  all  this  fuss  they  will  be  careful.'  '  Strange,  very 
strange  ',  said  the  Lord  Mayor.  '  He  is  really  not  a  criminal, 
but  his  head  is  gone.'  And  he  shut  him  up  in  a  lunatic 
asylum,  where  he  is  still.  "  (Schweitzer,  15  f.). 
4.  VIII,  745. 


THE  ACCUSATION  OF  IMPOSTURE       123 

Voltaire,  who  dedicated  his   "  Mohammed  "  to 
Benedict  XIV.     He  would,  however,  have  found 
it  embarassing  to  send  to  Rome  his  "  Nathan  the 
Sage,  "  in  which  he  affects  to  put  on  an  equal 
footing  Christianity,  Judaism  and  Islamism.     It  is, 
in  fact,  with  Lessing  that  German  literature  breaks 
with  the  Lutheran  church.     Klopstock,  the  pious 
singer  of  the  Messias,   died  only  in    1803.     But 
already  his  poem  was  regarded  as  tedious;  Goethe 
was    reigning    and    causing    paganism    to    reign. 
Schiller,  an  ardent  and  elevated  soul,  was  a  Deist 
and  a  spirituahst;  he -was  no  longer  a  Christian. 
In  that  same  year,  1803,  Herder  died.     He  was  a 
mystic  by  temperament,  with  a  sufficient  love  for 
the  beautiful  to  have  a  taste  for  the  poetry  of  the 
Bible;  though  at  first  a  convinced  Christian,  the 
new  prophet  of  history  had  become  a  Deist,  rather 
in  the  manner  of  Rousseau,  it  is  true,  than  in  that 
of  Voltaire.     Schiller,  who  heard  him  preach  when 
he  was  a  pastor  at  Weimar,  saw  in  his  sermon  only 
a  "  sensible  talk,  a  moral  lesson  which  could  have 
been  given  in  a  mosque  just  as  well  as  in  a  Christian 
church.    "    ^    But    this    was    not    enough.     This 
great  Herder,  whom  Germany  still  admires  as  one 
of  her  historian- thinkers,  conceived  the  idea  of  a 
book  on  the  "  Genius  of  Christianity,   "  which 
would  have  been  the  history  of  the  alterations  of 
the  primitive  thought  of  Jesus,  conceived  of  as  a 
stranger   to   all   external   worship.     He   had   the 
project  of  presenting  all  the  feasts,  the  temples, 
the  rites,  the  consecrations,  the  literary  composi- 

1.  Letter  to  Koerner,  in  Heinrich,  II,  364. 


124  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

tions  of  Christianity  as  the  "  muddy  contamination 
of  a  pure  fountain-head.  "  ^  And  nevertheless, 
in  1802,  Chateaubriand  was  giving  to  a  dehghted 
France  his  "  Genius  of  Christianity,  or  the  Beauties 
of  Rehgion.  " 

But  Herder  may  figure  here  only  for  his  evange- 
lical studies.  2  He  had  known  Reimarus  at 
Hamburg.  However,  his  enthusiasm  for  the 
Prophets  and  for  the  religious  genius  of  the  Orient, 
forbade  his  treating  the  Gospel  hke  a  pohce  story. 
He  continued  to  speak  of  Christ  in  magnificent 
language,  without  adoring  Him.  He  saw  in  the 
Gospel  an  epic  told  under  the  influence  of  the  Old 
Testament.  By  this  suggestion,  and  by  the 
contrast  which  he  drew  between  the  three  first 
Gospels  and  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  he  seems,  says 
Mr.  Schweitzer,  to  join  hands  with  Strauss.  The 
time  was  not  yet  ripe.  Before  Strauss  made  his 
radical  attack  on  the  Gospels  German  exegesis 
tried  to  apply  to  them  the  naturahst  hypothesis 
proposed  by  the  rationalism  of  the  "  Enlight- 
nment.  " 


1.  "  Idea  on  the  Philosophy  of  History  " ,  Bk.  XVII,  ch.  r. 
in  Heinrich,  II,  564. 

2.  Vom  Erloser  der  Menschen.  Nach  unsern  drei  ersten 
Ei>angelien  (1796).  Von  Gottes  Sohn,  der  Welt  Heiland. 
Nach  Johannes  Evangelium  (1797). 


FOURTH  LECTURE. 

THE  VIEWS  OF  ENLIGHTENED  RATIONALISM. 


The  period  from  1778  to  1835,  between  the 
appearance  of  the  Wolfenbtittel  Fragments  and 
that  oi  Strauss'  much  more  destructive  work, 
"  The  Life  of  Jesus,  "  was  relatively  tranquil;  its 
typical  exegetes  and  exegetical  systems  are  not 
sensational;  nor  are  they  of  much  interest,  except 
for  the  student  of  German  psychology. 

What  is  called  the  age  of  the  Enhghtenment  in 
Germany  is  that  of  the  ascendency  of  the  Wolffian 
philosophy.  At  that  time  Germans  spoke  of  the 
Aufkldrung  as  though  the  sun  had  arisen  to  dispel 
the  northern  fogs  and  herald  the  advent  of  great 
advancement  in  thought  and  civilization;  it  was 
compared  to  the  Renaissance,  which  had  followed 
upon  the  darkness  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Nowadays 
no  body  even  in  Germany  shares  this  illusion;  the 
Enhghtenment  is  not  spoken  of  without  a  note  of 
sarcasm.  People  reahze  that  the  age  was  that  in 
which  Rationahsm  was  supreme ;  and  no  Germans 
of  any  school  of  thought  wish  to  be  called  Ration- 
alists any  more  than  they  wish  to  be  called  Deists. 
Their  terminology  here  requires  attention.  With 
u^  Deism  is  only  the  pseudo-rehgious  conclusion 
of  Rationahsm  when  it  deigns  to  solve  in  the 
affirmative  the  question  of  the  existence  of  God; 


126  THE    MEANING    OF    (CHRISTIANITY 

and  Rationalism  is  the  philosophy  of  all  those  who 
reject  revelation.  In  Germany,  on  the  other 
hand,  both  Deism  and  Rationahsm  are  now  terms 
of  reproach  even  with  those  who  refuse  to  believe 
anything  which  is  not  within  the  domain  of  reason. 
For  them  "  Rationalism  "  is  a  thing  of  the  past; 
and  i<-  really  is,  if  considered  as  that  shallow 
rationahsm  of  which  Wolff  was  the  initiator. 

The  philosopher  Christian  Wolff  was  a  disciple  of 
Leibnitz  and  a  faithful  repeater  of  many  of  his 
lessons;  but  he  possessed  neither  the  penetrating 
intelhgence  nor  the  rehgious  feehng  of  his  master. 
He  set  himself  the  task  of  breaking  the  window^s 
of  Lutheran  orthodoxy  and  letting  in  the  rays  of 
"  enhghtened  rationahsm  ";  he  engraved  the  rising 
sun  on  the  cover  of  his  books.  His  philosophical 
ideas  were  superficial  but  clear;  this  was  against 
their  ultimate  triumph.  Germany  does  not  insist 
on  philosophy  being  intelligible,  but  she  wants  it 
deep.  Her  real  prophet  is  Emmanuel  Kant,  who 
arose  in  the  East  about  1750.  It  may  be  that  the 
unpopularity  of  rationalism  as  she  first  knew  it  is 
due  to  the  feehng  that  it  came  to  her  from  without, 
and  that  it  is  contrary  to  her  temperament,  at  least 
when  it  is  plain-spoken.  At  any  rate  she  early 
repudiated  the  old  rationalists'  confidence  in 
reason. 

What  is  German  in  German  Rationalism  is  that 
it  was  rarely  logical  in  its  consequences  or  frank 
in  its  manifestations.  All  the  writers  of  whom 
we  are  about  to  speak  really  believed  that  Chris- 
tianity, which  they  did  not  wish  to  renounce,  is  of 
value  only  in  virtue  of  its  conformity  v^th  reason. 


THE    VIEWS    OF    ENLIGHTENED    RATIONALISM       127 

While  Crtholics  see  that  Christianity  teaches  what 
the  human  mind  can  know  about  God,  ourselves, 
and  our  duties;  while  they  see  in  this  correspon- 
dence of  the  teaching  of  Christianity  with  the 
teaching  of  reason  and  conscience  a  proof  of  its 
divinity,  they  see,  at  the  same  time,  that  Christian 
dogmas  transcend  reason.  They  submit  to  this 
transcendent  teaching  because  it  is  guaranteed  by 
the  testimony  of  Jesus  Christ,  whose  mission  was 
accompanied  by  prophecies  and  attested  by 
miracles.  Rationahsm  did  not  wish  to  accept 
Christian  dogma,  nor  prophecies  and  miracles  as  a 
proof  of  the  supernatural;  but  at  first  it  did  not 
wish  openly  to  reject  Lutheran  dogmas  or  Biblical 
prophecies  and  miracles.  It  was  so  pleasant  to 
float  along  on  those  undisturbed  waters  in  which 
were  reflected  the  old  Burgs  of  the  Fatherland ! 
To  retain  this  tranquility  it  was  not  necessary  to 
be  a  real  believer;  one  might  keep  the  old  words 
for  one's  sermons,  and  only  change  their  meaning. 
This  was  the  first  stage  of  German  Rationahsm. 
The  second  disengaged  itself  more  completely  from 
the  traditional  formulas;  in  the  story  of  the  life 
of  Christ  a  romantic  mystery  was  substituted  for 
the  supernatural  of  the  Gospel.  In  the  third 
stage,  with  Paulus,  Rationahsm  became  a  perfectly 
coordinated  system,  expounded  with  entire  sincer- 
ity. But  this  sincerity  brought  to  light  its  initial 
falsehood,  and  the  shallowness  of  its  exegasis  when 
apphed  to  the  Gospels,  documents  which  had  not 
merely  a  supernatural  coloring,  but  were  wholly 
conceived  in  the  supernatural.  It  was  feared  that 
there  would  be  a  rupture  between  orthodoxy  and 

9 


128  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

Rationalism;  a  divorce  seemed  about  to  be  pro- 
nounced. But  at  this  point  Schleiermacher  pro- 
posed a  conciliation  which  permitted  concord  to 
be  preserved  in  a  semiobscurity.  In  this  fourth 
stage  Rationalism  went  down  into  the  depths  of 
the  soul  and  wrapped  itself  in  the  sentiment  of 
the  infinite. 

These  four  modes  of  exegetical  rationalism 
produce,  then,  four  episodes  which  lend  some 
variety  to  its  rather  monotonous  history.  Keep  in 
mind  that  we  shall  proceed  from  unconscious  confu- 
sion to  compromising  clarity,  to  plunge  finally 
into  a  region  of  deliberate  confusion. 


I.     Jesu^  the   most  emlightened 

REPRESENTATIVE    OF    ENLIGHTENED     REASON. 

The  first  rationalists,  now  almost  forgotten,  had 
their  days  of  glory.  They  were  not,  indeed,  men 
,of  genius,  but  they  possessed  that  brilhancy  which 
best  reflects  the  tendencies  of  a  period,  for  the 
reason  that  they  have  little  but  what  they  receive 
from  their  environment.  Such  men  are  powerless 
to  create;  but  they  are  faithful  echoes.  And 
answering  echoes  prove  that  they  have  given 
back  to  the  public  what  they  had  borrowed  from 
it. 

As  illustrative  of  the  first  period,  I  shall  take 
only  the  name  ofVolkmar  Reinhard.  ^    He  has  left 

1.  Born  at  Salzbach  in  1753,  died  in  1812.  According  to 
Schweitzer,  the  way  was  opened,  in  1768,  the  year  of  the 


THE    VIEWS    OF    ENLIGHTENED    RATIONALISM       129 

thirty-four  volumes  of  sermons,  which  are  spoken 
of  in  histories  of  German  hterature.  Heinrich  says  of 
them  :  "  His  sermons  are  still  cited  as  a  model  of 
logic,  of  perfect  order,  and  of  taste;  his  'System  of 
Christian  Morals'  abounds  in  thoughts  expressed 
in  strong  and  sober  language,  and  his  'Confessions' 
are  a  fine,  dehcate  analysis  of  the  human  soul.  "  ^ 
After  he  had  been  for  fourteen  years  Docent  at  Wit- 
tenberg, he  became  in  1792  Senior  Chaplain  to  the 
court  at  Dresden.  He  published  in  1781  the  work 
with  which  we  are  here  concerned,  "  Essay  upon 
the  Plan  which  the  Founder  of  the  Christian  Reli- 
gion Adopted  for  the  Benefit  of  Mankind.  "  This 
volume  of  five  hundred  pages  had  a  fifth  edition  as 
late  as  1830. 

I  know  the  work  only  by  the  analysis  of  Mr.  Al- 
bert Schweitzer.  The  conclusions  of  this  critic  are 
really  very  strange.  This  is  the  first  :  "  With  all 
his  philosophising  and  rationalising  certain  pillars 
of  the  supernaturahstic  view  of  history  remain  for 
him  immovable.  "  ^  And  this  is  the  second  : 
"  For  him  the  one  circle  of  thought  (that  which 
concerns  the  natural)  revolves  freely  within  the 
other    (that   which    concerns    the    supernatural), 


death  of  Reimarus,  by  Johann  Jakob  Hess,  "  History  of  the 
Last  Three  Years  of  the  Life  of  Jesus  ",  3  vols.,  1.400  pp., 
first  edition  in  1768-1772;  seventh  edition  in  1823  ff.  Of 
like  tendency  are  Ernest  August  Opitz,  preacher  at  Zschep- 
pelin,  "  History  of  Jesus  with  a  Delineation  of  His  Character,  ' 
1812,  and  John  Adolphus  Jacobi,  superintendent  at  Walters- 
hausen,  "  The  History  of  Jesus  for  Thoughtful  and  Sympa- 
thetic Readers,  "  1816. 

1.  Hist,  de  la  litt.  allemande,  II,  294. 

2.  Schweitzer,  The  Quest  of  the  Historical  Jesus,  p.   31, 


130  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

but  they  never   come    into    contact    with    each 
other.  "  1 

Were  it  question  of  a  Latin,  I  should  say  that  the 
preacher  understood  that  these  two  circles  of 
thought  are  incompatible,  that  only  proper  decorum 
prevented  the  Senior  Court  Chaplain  from  openly 
attacking  the  supernatural.  And  even  in  the  case 
of  a  German,  this  is  the  most  probable  explanation. 
But  Mr.  Schweitzer,  a  radical,  opines  that  he  was 
in  good  faith.  He  is  in  no  wise  astonished  by  the 
contradiction.  And  we  must,  indeed,  always 
remember  that  it  is  possible  for  two  contradictory 
propositions  to  exist  at  the  same  time  in  these 
brains.  I  am  not  blaming  them;  I  am  rather 
looking  for  attenuating  circumstances  in  this 
peculiarity  of  the  German  temperament.  Let  me 
quote  to-day  what  is  said  of  this  national  trait  by 
M.  Pierre  Duhem,  an  admirable  Catholic  scientist 
who  has  just  been  taken  from  us  :  "  To  place  in 
the  number  of  axioms  a  proposition  which  is  for- 
mally self-contradictory,  then  to  draw  a  series  of 
corollaries,  is  a  delicious  exercise  for  a  geometrical 
mind,  which  disdains  niceties  and  common  sense.  " 
This  w€is,  says  M.  Duhem,  the  case  of  the  pre- 
cursor of  modern  astronomy,  Nicholas  Cardinal  of 
Cusa  :  "  To  serve  as  a  basis  of  the  edifice  which 
he  was  to  raise,  the  German  Cardinal  laid  down 
this  affirmation,  the  contradictory  character  of 
which  is  manifest  :  In  every  order  of  things,  the 
maximum  is  identical  with  the  minimum.  Then, 
upon  this  foundation,  the  deductive  method  per- 

1.  X.  Z.,  p.  34. 


THE    VIEWS    OF    ENLIGHTENED    RATIONALISM       131 

mitted  him  to  construct  a  whole  metaphysical  sys- 
tem. "  1 

What  has  taken  place  in  the  sciences  may  throw 
some  hght  on  the  history  of  exegesis;  all  the  more 
that  here  all  is  much  easier.  It  suffices  to  speak 
like  theologians  about  inspiration,  revelation,  and 
miracles,  while  reducing  these  notions  to  s.uch 
proportions  that  they  can  be  accepted  by  the 
enlightened  reason.  And  this  is  what  Reinhard 
undertook  to  do,  even  in  regard  to  the  soul  of 
Jesus,  even  in  regard  to  such  very  human  senti- 
ments as  fervor  and  enthusiasm,  which  he  deemed 
unworthy  of  a  cool  and  collected  sage  :  "  Can  any 
man  who  knows  anything  of  the  human  mind 
conceive  of  visionary  enthusiasm  and  enlightened 
reason  united  in  a  single  soul  ?  "  ^  Now  ei  lightened 
reason  was  predominant  in  the  soul  of  Jesus.  He 
proposed  to  unite  morality  and  religion  by  the 
bond  of  love.  Moral  instruction  was  the  principal 
content  and  the  very  essence  of  all  His  discourses, 
for  his  religion  was  nothing  but  the  exercice  of 
reason.  And  since  no  great  man  of  antiquity 
before  Jesus  had  devised  so  beneficent  a  plan  for 
the  whole  human  race-,  Reinhard  could  conclude 
that  the  founder  of  Christianity  is  "  the  uniquely 
divine  Teacher.  "  ^  What  mattered  after  that  if 
the  Senior  Court  Chaplain  continued  to  speak  of 
Jesus  in  the  language  of  the  Protestant  professions 


1.  "  Some   Reflexions  on   German  Science,  •"  Revue  des 
Deux  Mondes,  Feb.,  1,  1915.  pp.  671  and  672. 

2.  Schweitzer,  p.  33. 

3.  Schweitzer,  p.  33. 


132  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

of  faith?  iinlightened  reason  recognized  in  Jesus 
merely  its  most  enlightened  representative.  And 
what  mattered  if  he  spoke  of  miracles  and  even 
related  miracles?  He  had  given  warning  :  "  All 
that  we  call  miraculous  and  supernatural  is  to  be 
understood  as  only  relatively  so ;  it  implies  nothing 
further  than  an  obvious  exception  to  what  can  be 
brought  about  by  natural  causes,  so  far  as  we  know 
them  and  have  experience  of  their  capacity.  A 
cautious  thinker  will  not  venture  in  any  single 
instance  to  pronounce  an  event  to  be  so  extraordi- 
nary that  God  could  not  have  brought  it  about  by 
the  use  of  secondary  causes,  but  only  by  direct 
intervention.  "  ^  This  is  saying  with  sufficient 
distinctness  that  the  miracle  is  only  the  unexplain- 
ed; it  is  "  disintegrating  the  notion  of  miracle 
from  within.  " 

But  Reinhard  had  the  tact,  and  the  prudence, 
not  to  explain  too  much.  Like  all  who  admire  in 
Jesus  only  the  moraUst,  he  made  too  little  of  His 
messianic  role.  The  reign  of  God  which  He  willed 
could  only  be  a  moral  institution.  Not  only  was 
His  plan  entirely  independent  of  politics,  but  He 
never  based  His  claims  upon  messianic  descent. 
To  raise  Jesus  Christ  above  temporal  concerns,  the 
"  enlightened  reason  "  of  Reinhard  disfigures  and 
diminislies  Him.  While  giving  Him  an  outlook 
upon  the  whole  world  and  rightly  denying  that  He 
was  aiming  at  the  foundation  of  an  earthly  king- 
dom, it  disfigures  His  concept  of  the  reign  of  God 
on  earth  as  in  Heaven. 

1.  Schweitzer,  p.  32. 


THE    VIEWS    OF    ENLIGHTENED    RATIONALISM       133 

Jesus  becomes,  in  this  system,  the  founder  of  the 
reign  of  reason  :  "  It  would  bc^  impossible  to  show 
more  conscientious  respect  and  a  more  delicate 
consideration  for  the  rights  of  human  reason  than  is 
shown  by  Jesus.  "  ^  Rdnhard  doubtless  attributed 
his  own  program  to  the  Master.  Now  Jesus  was 
not  an  eighteenth  century  rationalist.  I  will  not 
say,  as  some  do,  that  He  trod  reason  under  foot; 
but  it  is  clear  that  He  did  more  to  give  birth  to 
faith  than  to  accomodate  faith  to  the  reasoning 
reason.  What  became  of  faith  in  this  new  system, 
of  that  faith  of  Paul  rediscovered  by  Luther  ?  How 
reconcile  such  commonplace  morality  with  the 
spirit  of  sacrifice  required  by  Jesus?  What  did 
Reinhard  substitute  for  the  ancient  dogma?  How 
did  he  harmonize  the  symbohcal  view  of  Baptism 
and  of  the  Eucharist  which  he  attributed  to  Jesus 
with  Lutheran  doctrine?  As  we  have  aL*eady 
said,  Reinhard  did  not  feel  himself  obliged  to 
answer  such  questions  directly.  It  was  enough 
tacitly  to  dispense  his  readers  from  faith  in  the 
supernatural.  At  bottom,  he  was  equivocating. 
No  one  thought  of  blaming  him  for  it;  it  was  the 
fashion.  Men  could  not  refuse  to  accept  hght  and 
culture;  but  it  was  deemed  unnecessary  to  upset 
the  old  Christian  edifice  and  openly  to  renounce 
dogmas,  since  a  man  could  accept  these  dogmas  in 
the  sense  that  appealed  to  himself.  Why  cease  to 
speak  of  revelation?  Reason  was  in  its  way  a 
revelation.  Jesus  remained  the  "  unique  Master,  " 
the  same  commuiiion  cups  continued  to  be  used, 

1.  Schweitzer,  p.  34. 


134  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

the  Bible  was  piously  read  as  a  source  of  excellent 
morality  and  particularly  of  charity. 


II.     The    activities   of    the    Essenes    expla  n 

THE     mysterious     ELEMENT     IN     THE     LiFE     OF 

Jesus.   Bahrdt  and   Venturini. 

There  were,  however,  especially  in  the  beginning 
of  this  period,  some  minds  which  could  not  accom- 
modate themselves  to  this  equivocation,  nor  check 
their  intellectual  curiosity  about  the  origin  of 
Christianity.  The  fine  discourses  of  such  preachers 
as  Reinhard  about  the  ethics  of  Jesus  did  not 
explain  how  things  had  taken  place,  especially  as 
regards  the  Resurrection.  People  hardly  believed 
that  Jesus  had  been  raised  up  from  the  dead  (though 
they  still  said  so),  and  nevertheless  they  could  not 
believe  that  His  disciples  had  become  graveyard 
thieves.  Anyhow,  the  disciples  were  incapable 
of  such  fine  moral  teaching;  this  must  be  the 
proper  work  of  Jesus.  What,  then,  had  happened? 
It  was  not  enough  to  depict  Jesus  as  a  rationalist 
of  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century;  it  was  neces- 
sary to  interrogate  history,  as  Reimarus  had  done, 
and,  since  the  imposture  hypothesis  was  too 
shocking,  to  find  another  solution. 

The  solution  which  was  imagined  was  strange; 
the  "  Lives  of  Jesus  "  which  were  built  up  about 
it  belong  to  fiction  of  the  dime-novel  variety.  It 
would  be  hard  to  conceive  how  it  had  entered  into 
an  "  enhghtened  "  mind  if  we  did  not  remember 


THE    VIEWS    OF    ENLIGHTENED    RATIONALISM 


135 


the  extraordinary  impression  produced  by  those 
superlatively   "    enUghtened   "    persons,   the   first 
Freemasons.     We   can  forgive  Bahrdt    and    Ven- 
turini  when  we  think  that  the  great  Goethe  himself 
was   very   much   impressed.     I    understand   that 
his  book  on  "   The   Years   of  Apprenticeship   of 
Wilhelm  Meister  "  is  more  admired  on  faith  than 
read.     It    is,    nevertheless,    a    masterpiece,    even 
among  the  works  of  Goethe.    Wilhelm  undergoes 
hard  experiences,  but  he  thereby  becomes  wise. 
He  is  less  moving,  but  more  attractive,  than  the 
neurasthenic  Werther.     Now,   how  does  it  come 
about  that,  after  having  brought  his  hero  through 
so  many  adventures,  Goethe,  the  reaUst,  conceived 
the  notion  of  initiating  him  into  Freemasonry,  as 
a    source    of   subhme    and    mysterious    teaching? 
How  is  it  that  the  author  of  so  many  exquisite 
songs,  the  poet  of  Mignon,  organized  for  his  heroine 
the  funeral  of  a  lay  worship?     His  burial  service, 
borrowed  from  the  Greeks,  is  certainly  ridiculous 
when  the  Greek  faith  is  left  out.     The  urlikehness 
of  the  end  makes  one  forget  the  youthful  grace  and 
the  captivating  naturalness  of  the  beginning.     My 
point  is   not  that  the  masonic  novel  of  Goethe 
served  as  a  model  for  Bahrdt's  fictitious  Life  of 
Christ;  Bahrdt  wrote  in  1784-1792,  while  the  first 
part  of  "•  Wilhelm  Meister  "  appeared  only  in  1796; 
I  merely  mention  Goethe's  romance  as  a  very  clear 
instance  of  a  tendency  of  the  time  to  exaggerate  the 
action  of  secret  societies,  or  at  least  to  attribute  to 
them  in  the  past  the  activity  which  they  manifested 
just  before  the  French  Revolution. 

It  is  nothing  less  than  an  explanation  of  Chris- 


136  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

tianity  by  the  infliience  of  a  secret  society  in  the 
time  of  Christ  that  is  given  by  Karl  Friedrich 
Bahrdt  in  his  "  Explanation  of  the  Plans  and 
Aims  of  Jesus,  in  Letters  Addressed  to  Readers 
who  Seek  the  Truth,  "  in  11  volumes,  embracing 
3.000  pages. 

The  Freemasons  of  the  days  of  Jesus  are  the 
Essenes,  divided  into  three  classes  :  The  Baptized, 
The  Disciples,  The  Chosen  Ones.  It  is  the  Chosen 
Ones  who  appear  in  the  garb  of  angels.  The  Order 
deceived  the  people,  but  for  their  own  good.  It 
was  necessary  to  break  the  spell  of  political  mes- 
sianic expectations,  which  were  dangerous  for  the 
nation,  and  to  raise  the  people  to  a  rehgion  of 
reason,  useful  for  all  mankind.  Jesus  was  trained 
by  these  Essenes.  When  He  was  but  a  child  they 
read  to  Him  the  story  of  the  death  of  Socrates,  and 
He  longed  to  emulate  the  martyr-death  of  the  great 
Athenian.  But  to  enlighten  His  fellow-men  and  to 
promote  their  welfare.  He  had  to  deceive  them  by 
false  miracles.  A  mysterious  Persian  revealed  to 
Him  at  Nazareth  two  secret  remedies,  one  for 
affections  of  the  eye,  the  other  for  nervous  disorders. 
On  His  reception  into  the  highest  degree  of  the 
Society  of  the  Essenes,  Jesus  offered  to  die  if  need 
be  for  the  good  of  the  Order.-  But  He  hoped  to  be 
rescued  by  Nicodemus  and  Joseph  of  Arimathea, 
who  were  in  the  plot.  All  was,  indeed,  so  orga- 
nized that  He  ran  as  little  risk  as  possible.  He 
was  taken  down  from  the  cross  in  time,  left  the 
tomb  alive,  pretended  to  ascend  into  heaven, 
appeared  to  St.  Paul,  and  continued'  to  direct  the 
nascent  community. 


THE    VIEWS    OF    ENLIGHTENED    RATIONALISM       137 

You  ask  from  what  kind  of  unbalanced  mind 
this  romance  came  forth.  It  came  from  a  man 
whose  heart  was  corrupted,  at  any  rate;  Bahrdt 
was  excluded  from  teaching  on  account  of  immoral- 
ity in  1766.  However,  permission  to  teach  at 
Halle  was  afterwards  given  him  by  Zedlitz,  a 
minister  and  friend  of  Frederick  II,  and  he  had 
nearly  nine  hundred  pupils. 

The  theme  outlined  by  Bahrdt  was  dealt  with 
more  fully  by  Karl  Heinrich  Venturini,  in  his 
"  Non-Supernatural  History  of  the  Great  Prophet 
of  Nazareth,  "  in  4  volumes  embracing  2.700  pages, 
which  had  two  editions,  in  1800-1802  and  in  1806. 
Of  him  Mr.  Schweitzer  assures  us  that  "  his  hfe 
was  blameless  and  his  personal  piety  beyond 
reproach.  "  Nevertheless  the  Duke  of  Brunswick 
did  not  dare  to  authorize  him  to  teach.  He  'was 
only  a  pastor  of  the  holy  Gospel !  Agg^in  we  meet 
with  the  repulsive  imputation  of  fraud;  Venturini 
excuses  the  Master,  on  the  ground  that  his  miracles 
had  an  ethical  purpose,  were  designed  to  lead  the 
Jews  to  a  higher  morality.  And  what  miracles 
they  were!  wrought  with  the  help  of  a  "portable 
medical  chest !  "  At  the  marriage-feast  of  Cana, 
Jesus  provided  wine  which  He  had  brought  with 
Him  as  a  wedding-gift,  and  had  put  aside  in  another 
room.  If  St.  John  said  that  He  changed  water  into 
wine,  it  was  perhaps  because  he  had  been  "  the 
least  thing  merry  himself,  "  and  had  behoved  in 
the  miracle  with  the  rest. 

However,  the  Jesus  of  Venturini,  more  coura- 
geous than  the  Jesus  of  Bahrdt,  really  faced  death 
on  the  cross ;  and  He  did  nearly  die  !     But  Joseph 


138  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

of  Arimathea  contrived  to  revive  Him  in  the 
tomb;  the  apparition  of  an  Essene  in  a  v^hite 
costume  v^as  enough  to  frighten  av^ay  the  guards. 
But  the  shock,  had  been  too  severe;  at  the  end 
of  forty  days,  His  strength  was  exhausted  and  He 
bade  farewell  to  His  disciples. 

Now  here  is  something  which  would  appear  just 
as  unlikely  as  Venturini's  story.  Mr.  Schweitzer 
declares  :  "  Venturini's  'Non-Supernatural  History 
of  the  Great  Prophet  of  Nazareth'  may  almost  be 
said  to  be  re-issued  annually  down  to  the  present 
day,  for  all  the  fictitious  'Lives'  go  back  directly 
or  indirectly  to  the  type  which  he  created.  It  is 
plagiarised  more  freely  than  any  other  Life  of  Jesus, 
although  practically  unknown  by  name.  "  ^  Here 
is  matter  for  consideration  for  one  who  would 
estimate  the  religious  sentiment,  as  well  as  the 
enlightened  reason  of  our  neighbours.  There  have 
from  time  to  time  appeared  among  us  evangelical 
narratives  of  suspicious  mien.  Thanks  be  to  God, 
even  these  romances  do  not  question  the  divinity 
of  Jesus.  And  a  place  is  reserved  for  them  in  the 
catalogue  of  the  Index.  I  do  not  think,  besides, 
that  any  Cathohc  has  ventured  to  make  Jesus 
figure  in  interminable  dialogues  without  ever 
placing  upon  His  lips  a  word  from  the  Gospel. 
Lengthy  paraphrase,  lack  of  taste,  naive  wonder 
at  the  occult  action  of  Essenes  unknown  to  history, 
ignorance  of  the  spirit  of  Jesus,  such  are  the  chief 
characteristics  of  this  literature.  Philostratus,  in 
his  Life  of  Apollonius  of  Tyana,  is  less  tedious,  and 

1.  Schweitzer,  p.  47. 


THE    VIEWS    OF    ENLIGHTENED    RATIONALISM       139 

he  makes  fewer  demands  on  the  creduhty  of  his 
readers. 


III.  PaULUS       systematically        REDUCES       THE 

MIRACLES     TO     THE     PROPORTIONS    OF     NATURAL 
EVENTS. 

And  nevertheless  Venturini  was  not  left  exclu- 
sively to  his  unbridled  imagination  in  composing 
his  Life  of  Jesus.  In  his  second  edition,  he  had  as 
a  guide  Paulus,  whose  commentaries  on  the  Gospels 
had  just  appeared.  In  Germany  erudition  never 
loses  all  its  rights,  as  it  knows  how  to  indulge  the 
requirements  of  fancy.  With  Heinrich  Eberhard 
Gottheb  Paulus  (born  at  Leonberg  in  1761)  we  are 
introduced  into  the  higher  teaching  of  the  univer- 
sities; and  at  the  same  time  we  have  to  deal  with 
a  very  logical  system,  openly  professed  with  all  its 
consequences. 

I  am  incHned  to  think  that  Paulus  does  not 
represent  the  true  German  proclivities.  In  Ger- 
many his  rationahsm  has  fallen  into  general 
discredit ;  his  explanations  are  regarded  as  superan- 
nuated. This  disdain  condemns,  it  may  be,  his 
frankness,  his  uncompromising  attitude,  his  decided 
taste  for  clear  ideas,  his  invincible  opposition  to  all 
that  cannot  be  controlled  by  reason.  Perhaps  the 
most  characteristic  thing  about  his  long  career  was 
the  war  he  waged  against  Schelhng,  when  that 
pantheistic  -  ideahstic  and  German  philosopher 
tried  to  reconcile  his  system  with  a  nominal  theory 
of  Revelation.     This  compromise  was  sufficiently 


140  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

artful  to  seduce  some  Catholics,  like  Goerres;  it 
appeared  to  Paulus  "  an  insidious  attack  on  sound 
reason,  the  unmasking  of  which  by  every  possible 
means  was  a  work  of  public  utility,  nay,  even  a 
duty.  1  "  He  was,  however,  a  Pantheist  himself. 
His  Pantheism  was  the  realism  of  Spinoza.  When 
one  makes  up  his  mind,  as  had  the  Dutch  Jew,  not 
to  distinguish  Godi  from  nature,  there  can  be  no 
question  of  miracle.  Now  Paulus  prepared  an 
edition  of  Spinosa's  writings  and  wrote  an  intro- 
duction for  them,  at  the  time  when  Spinosa  was 
regaining  ascendency  at  the  beginning  of  the 
XIX  century.  It  is  on  Spinoza  that  Paulus  depends 
as  a  thinker,  rather  than  on  Kaat. 

Here  we  may  open  a  parenthesis  in  connection 
with  the  name  of  the  celebrated  Kant.  To  read 
some  French  articles  on  German  exegesis,  one 
would  think  that  it  had  been  wholly  under  the 
influence  of  the  Koenigsberg  professor  since  the  end 
of  the  xviii  century.  Many  seem  inchned  to  make 
him  responsible  for  all  its  errings,  indiscriminately. 
I  cannot  accept  this  view,  usually  very  briefly 
insinuated,  and  justified  in  a  few  words  on  the 
subjective  tendencies  of  "  the  critics.  "  If  sub- 
jective tendencies  are  enough  to  make  one  a 
Kantist,  then  the  spirit  of  Kant  might  be  identified 
with  the  Germanic  spirit.  But,  avoiding  sach 
generalities,  we  see  that  the  rationahsm  of  Wolff 
and  of  Lessing  is  anterior  to  Kant,  and  that  Strauss 
and  Baur  profess  dependence  on  Hegel.  Between 
the  ancient  Rationalist  and  Paulus  there  is  no  other 

1.  Quoted  by  Schweitzer,  p.  50. 


THE    VIEWS    OF    ENLIGHTENED    RATIONALISM       141 

difference  than  the  latter's  logic  and  frankness. 
And  there  is  no  need  of  getting  lost  in  conjectures, 
since  Kant  has  seen  fit  to  give  his  opinion  on 
exegesis. 

In  1793  Kant  pubhshed  his  "  Religion  within 
the  Limits  of  Pure  Reason.  "  ^  This  rehgion  could 
not  be  the  real  Christian  religion,  as  Kant  reahzed. 
But  as  the  exigencies  of  the  moral  law  had  led  him 
to  God,  inaccessible  to  pure  reason,  the  need  of  the 
unlearned  obhged  him  to  preserve  the  form  of 
Christian  revelation,  which  gave  to  behef  a  valuable 
exterior  representation.  To  respect  this  revelation 
was  to  preserve  the  Bible,  and  this  he  allowed  on 
condition  that  Bibhcal  teaching  be  regarded  as 
symbohc  of  the  truths  recognized  by  reason. 

The  modern  philosopher,  then,  calmly  took  up 
and  apphed  to  Christianity  the  exegetical  system 
which  the  Stoics  had  applied  to  the  mythology  of 
Greece.  This  Stoic  system  was,  as  we  have  seen, 
a  conscious  misinterpretation  of  ancient  texts, 
made  in  view  of  accommodating  them  to  the  taste 
of  the  interpreter's  day.  The  Rationahst  inter- 
preters were  concerned  with  history.  Kant,  as  a 
philosopher,  valued  only  the  idea  which  is  under 
the  outer  historical  shell.  He  did  not  try  to  get  at 
the  mind  of  the  bibhcal  writers;  consequently  he 
did  not  practice  exegesis.  People  accused  him  of 
falsification;  Strauss  was  one  of  his  loudest  assail- 
ants. The  Koenigsberg  philosopher  would  not 
admit  the  truth  of  the  charge.     He  merely  disdain- 


1.  Die   Religion     innerhalh   der    Grenzei:   der   hlossen    Ver- 
nunft. 


142  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

ed  facts.  What  did  it  matter  what  the  writers 
thought?  Reason  does  but  use  her  rights  in 
giving  their  books  a  sense  which  she  judges  alone 
acceptable,  useful  to  the  moral  and  religious  hfe, 
ever  susceptible  of  improvement  with  the  progress 
of  time. 

Let  us  note,  again,  a  difference  between  the  case 
of  the  Stoics  and  that  of  such  interpreters  as  Kant. 
The  ancient  rehgion  of  continental  Greece  had  in 
the  beginning  a  moral  value  that  was  quite  high. 
"With  time,  while  taking  on  a  more  seductive  form 
of  beauty,  it  had  divested  its  truly  religious  ele- 
ments, and  was  but  a  school  of  immorality,  naive, 
but  not  excusable,  in  its  immodesty.  The  reason 
of  philosophers  could  not  explain  all  the  stories  of 
the  gods  without  transforming  them  completely, 
with  perpetual  violence.  It  is  not  so  with  the 
Bible;  Kant  could  recognize  in  it,  far  back  as  he 
could  go,  the  features  of  a  religion  which  he  attrib- 
uted to  the  instinct  of  humanity. 

Different  from  the  case  of  the  Stoics,  Kant's 
case  is  likewise  different  that  of  the  Fathers  who 
gave  an  allegorical  interpretation  of  the  Bible. 
The  Fathers  did  not  disregard  the  literal  sense ;  they 
simply  intended  to  add  thereto  a  spiritual  sense; 
Kant  knew  that  his  thought  differed  from  that  of 
the  sacred  writers.  The  genuine  meaning  of 
Scripture  did  not,  in  fact,  interest  him  sufficiently 
to  make  him  undertake  anything  hke  a  detailed 
application  of  his  method;  and  no  attempt  has  as 
yet  been  made  to  show  how  the  particular  facts 
related  by  the  Bible  were  the  symbols  of  the  new 
thoughts. 


THE    VIEWS    OF    ENLIGHTENED    RATIONALISM       143 

I  close  the  parenthesis.  You  will  perhaps 
excuse  it  as  a  faithful  reflection  of  the  intervention 
of  Kant  during  the  period  of  naturahsm.  His  was 
a  theory  without  much  practical  bearing,  unless  it 
be  by  the  influence  which  its  subjectivism  may 
have  had  on  Schleiermacher. 

Paulus  can  hardly  have  been  affected  by  it,  since 
as  early  as  in  1794  he  aroused  the  indignation  of 
the  Consistories  of  Meiningen  and  Eisenach  by 
his  naturahst  explanation  of  miracles.  He  only 
applied  this  explanation  when,  notwithstanding 
his  trouble  with  the  authorities,  he  published  his 
"  Commentary  on  the  Synoptic  Gospels  "  in  1800- 
1802.  If,  in  1828,  his  "  Life  of  Jesus  "  i  appeared 
to  claim  connection  with  Kant,  then  entered  into 
his  glory,  it  was  only  in  so  far  as  its  author  took 
his  place  among  the  upholders  of  a  rationahst 
Christianity.  But  this  was  already  the  Christi- 
anity of  Lessing.  ""^ 

I  see  nothing  more  than  this  in  a  passage  cited  by 
Father  Vigouroux  to  prove  Paulus'  dependence  on 
Kant  :  "  The  principal  purpose  of  Jesus  and  of 
all  of  His,  is  to  exhort  men  first  to  correct  the  gross 
inclinations  of  their  nature  and  so  to  bring  about, 
by  a  reform  of  individual  wills  which  will  make 
them  like  unto  God,  a  social  state  worthy  of  the 
approval  of  the  true  God,  a  divine  government 
adapted  to  the  happiness  of  the  greater  number. 
Such  is  the  vital  germ,   such  is  the  essence  of 

1.  Des  Lehen  Jesu  als  Grundlage  einer  reinen  Geschichte  des 
Urchristentums.  The  Life  of  Jesus  as  a  basis  of  a  purely 
Historical  account  of  Early  Christianity.  Heidelberg,  1828, 
2  vols.,  1192  pp. 

IQ 


144  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

Christianity.  "  ^  Christianity  is  thus  represented 
by  the  older  Rationahsm.  Instead  of  bettering 
men  by  the  influence  of  a  divine  society,  Christia- 
nity takes  as  its  starting-point  an  individual 
reform  which  is  to  react  on  the  whole.  This 
reform  will  find  a  hght  in  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  on 
condition  they  be  understood  in  the  sense  required 
by  enlightened  reason.  Paulus  had  appropiated 
all  this  simple  doctrine  of  Rationalism;  and  his 
program  was  readily  drawn  up.  The  EvangeUsts 
relate  supernatural  facts  in  order  to  arouse  faith 
in  supernatural  doctrine;  he  must  knock  the 
support  from  under  the  supernatural  doctrine  by 
reducing  the  miracles  to  natural  events  and  point- 
ing out  their  secondary  causes.  The  attempt  was 
bold ;  he  was  the  only  man  who  has  ever  made  it 
minutely  and  logically. 

In  the  books  in  which  biblical  exegesis  embalms 
its  former  doctors,  Paulus  is  dealt  with  under  the 
heading  "  Naturahstic  Explanation  of  Miracles.  " 
His  shade  is  evoked  all  the  more  readily  because  it 
is  easy  to  refute  him.  He  left  himself  open  to 
attack  by  proceeding  in  too  systematic  a  way,  and 
without  intricate  critical  discussion  of  his  sources. 
He  admits  the  authenticity  of  the  four  Gospels, 
two  of  which  are  from  eye-witnesses,  the  former 
pubhcan  Matthew  and  the  beloved  disciple  John. 
He  in  no  way  questions  the  Evangehsts'  good  faith 
and  veracity.  He  maintains  that  the  Gospels, 
properly  understood,  have  a  historical  value,  while 


1.  ViGOUROuy,  Melanges    hihliques,  p.   170,  citing    Lehen 
Jesu,  Vorrede,  t.  I,  p.  xi. 


THE    VIEWS    OF    ENLIGHTENED    RATIONALISM       145 

maintaining  that  no  miracle  has  either  been  seen 
or  been  performed.  The  weak  point  of  the  breast- 
plate is  obvious,  or  rather  there  is  no  breastplate. 
How  could  veracious  authors  relate  miracles 
which  were  not  miracles  ?  Paulus'  answer  was  that 
in  some  instances  they  did  not  intend  to  relate 
miracles;  it  was  the  commentators  who  made  the 
mistake.  Let  us  leave  aside  the  rare  cases  Paulus 
thus  accounted  for.  In  the  second  place,  the  au- 
thors themselves  represented  as  miraculous  certain 
events  which,  for  lack  of  knowledge,  they  could 
not  explain  otherwise.  We  are  now  less  incHned 
to  have  recourse  to  the  hypothesis  of  the  super- 
natural and  we  are  in  a  position  which  allows  us  to 
understand  the  real  nature  of  what  has  happened ; 
it  behoves  us  to  have  recourse  to  secondary  causes. 
There  is  a  twofold  advantage  in  this.  The  hfe  of 
the  great  doctor  Jesus  will  preserve  all  its  historical 
titles,  founded  upon  natural  facts ;  and  His  teaching, 
disengaged  from  its  supernatural  husk,  will  be 
assimilable  food  for  the  men  of  our  age.  There 
remains  for  us  no  miracle,  or  rather  only  on/ 
miracle,  and  "  that  is  Jesus  Himself,  the  purity  rnd 
serene  holiness  of  His  character,  which  is,  not- 
withstanding, genuinely  human,  and  adapted  to 
the  imitation  and  emulation  of  mankind.  "  The 
miracles  existed,  however,  in  the  belief  of  Jesus' 
contemporaries;  God  allowed  it  to  be  so  because 
their  minds  had  to  be  astounded  and  subdued  by 
inexplicable  facts.  The  impression  made  by  Jesus' 
actions  led  to  a  forward  step  in  religion;  Christian- 
ity entered,  thanks  to  a  misunderstanding,  which 
must  now  be   don3   away  with,   in  view  of  the 


146  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

advance  in  intellectual  culture;  it  has  nevertheless 
a  right  to  continue  to  live,  since  it  is  a  natural 
religion  of  the  highest  value  and  offers  in  the  hfe 
of  its  founder  a  model  for  all  times. 

This  construction  of  Paulus  v^as  without  solid 
foundation;  the  texts  do  not  support  it.  Once 
you  take  the  miraculous  element  out  of  their  story 
nothing  is  left.  Paulus  displays  considerable 
subtlety  in  replacing  the  supernatural  by  the  natu- 
ral, but  he  raises  the  fatal  objection  :  If  all  took 
place  in  such  a  simple  way,  how  were  the  disciples 
deceived?  We  know,  indeed,  that  certain  facts 
are  enhanced  by  the  imagination  as  they  pass  from 
mouth  to  mouth;  this  transformation  may  go,  for 
all  we  know,  to  the  extent  of  changing  a  natural 
event  into  a  miracle.  All  appears  possible,  when 
one  discusses  matters  in  these  general  terms.  But 
the  concrete  cases  offer  more  difficulty.  The 
disciples  believed  that  Jesus  walked  upon  the 
waters;  could  that  faith  have  arisen  from  the  fact 
that  they  saw  their  Master  walking  along  the  shore 
with  His  feet  in  the  mist? 

Paulus  tells  us  that  the  Savior  did  niot  multiply 
the  loaves;  he  explains  that  when  Jesus  saw  that 
the  multitude  was  hungry,  he  began  to  distribute 
His  own  provisions,  and  the  rich  people,  who  had 
with  them  camels  laden  with  food,  followed  His 
good  example.  But,  whence  come  and  whither 
go  these  camels,  so  manifestly  foreign  to  the  nar- 
ratives of  the  eye-witnesses? 

The  miracles  of  heahng  are  but  the  "  miracles  " 
of  a  clever  physician.  Sometimes  Jesus  used 
medicines  known  to  Him  alone.     The  man  born 


THE    VIEWS    OF    ENLIGHTENED    RATIONALISM       147 

blind  benefited  by  a  prescription  of  which  Jesus 
had  the  secret;  the  Siloam  mud  was  an  ocuhst's 
paste.  The  saying,  "  This  kind  (of  demons)  goeth 
not  out  save  by  prayer  and  fasting,  "  was  a  sug- 
gestion to  the  young  epileptic's  father  to  keep 
him  to  a  strict  diet  and  to  strengthen  his  character 
by  devotional  exercises.  Clearly  this  is  not  what 
the  texts  mean ! 

The  raisings  from  the  dead  were  only  cases  of 
coma.  Jesus  had  realized  the  dangers  of  over- 
hasty  burial.  In  a  country  where  interment  took 
place  three  hours  after  death,  how  many  seemingly 
dead  people  must  have  returned  to  consciousness 
in  their  graves  !  The  wise  healer  was  able  to  avert 
irreparable  misfortunes.  The  case  of  Lazarus, 
who  had  been  buried  for  four  days,  presented  no 
greater  difficulty  than  that  of  the  daughter  of 
Jairus  and  the  widow's  son.  The  brother  of 
Martha  and  Mary  had  revived  in  his  commodious 
tomb,  and  when  the  stone  was  rolled  away  Jesus 
had  only  to  call  joyously  to  His  friend,  "  Lazarus, 
come  forth !  " 

Naturally  the  case  of  the  apparent  death  of  the 
Savior  Himself  is  explained  in  the  same  way.  The 
lance-thrust  served  the  purpose  of  a  phlebotomy. 
The  coolness  of  the  tomb  and  the  aromatic  unguents 
of  the  holy  women  continued  the  process  of  resus- 
citation. The  storm  and  the  earthquake  aroused 
Him  to  full  consciousness,  and  rolled  away  the 
stone. 

Do  you  not  here  admire  the  professional 
conscientiousness  of  Paulus,  who  utiHzes  the 
earthquake  without  believing  in  the  Resurrection? 


148  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

Truly  it  would  be  useless  to  refute  an  exegesis 
which  does  not  deserve  the  name,  since  it  makes 
it  a  duty  to  betray  the  meaning  of  its  texts.  If,  in 
cert  in  cases,  it  does  not  seem  altogether  devoid  of 
likelihood,  it  meets  with  one  decisive  obstacle  which 
Paulus  does  not  appear  to  have  suspected.  The 
Apostles  cannot  have  been  so  stupidly  credulous  as 
he  pictures  them,  obstinately  bent  on  seeing 
miracles  in  the  most  natural  occurrencQs.  The 
display  of  such  a  capacity  to  distort  would  be,  in 
history,  an  absolutely  unique  exception.  There 
is  no  use  of  appealing  to  the  East.  Orientals,  as 
we  know  them,  are  suspicious  and  guarded;  and 
the  Jews  were  not  inclined  to  see  the  supernatural 
everywhere.  Josephus,  who  wrote  at  a  time  of 
feverish  excitement,  relates  hardly  anything  super- 
natural. When  the  Pharisees  demanded  a  sign 
of  Jesus,  they  intended  to  verify  it.  And,  finally, 
if  the  disciples  did  have  this  extravagant  proneness 
to  change  the  nature  of  the  actions  of  Jesus,  even 
before  they  came  to  believe  that  He  was  the  Mes- 
sias  (and  it  is  the  miracles  that  brought  them  to 
this  belief),  why  did  the  Master  nob  undeceive  them? 
Why,  instead  of  taking  advantage  of  the  common 
error  to  make  Himself  out  a  prophet,  did  He  not 
preach  against  the  abuse  of  over-early  burials? 
That  would  have  been  the  attitude  of  a  straight- 
forward man,  of  a  benefactor  of  mankind. 

Paulus  certainly  did  not  foresee  that  his  exegesis 
would  be  a  reflection  upon  the  character  of  Jesus. 
By  his  consistent  carrying  through  of  his  rational- 
istic explanation,  he  thought  he  was  serving 
reason.     We  may  credit  him  with  a  good  inten- 


THE    VIEWS    OF    ENLIGHTENED    RATIONALISM       149 

tion;    his    sincerity    has    produced    in    Germany 
another  systematically  exclusive  exegesis. 

For  its  own  good,  this  exegesis  was  too  clear. 
Rationalism  did  not  gain  anything  by  showing 
itself  such  as  it  was ;  it  was  beginning  to  be  out  of 
fashion.  Paulus'  interpretation  was  declared  to 
be  without  depth,  which  was  true;  but  especially 
objectionable  was  the  alternative  of  choosing 
between  the  supernatural  and  this  artificial  gloss 
on  the  Gospel.  Paulus  died  in  1851,  at  the  age  of 
ninety,  declaring  himself  ready  to  appear  before 
God  and  accusing  his  last  contemporaries  of  a  want 
of  honesty.  ^  This  charge  is  applicable  at  the 
present  day  if  Mr.  Schweitzer  is  justified  in  con- 
cluding his  article  on  Paulus  as  he  does  :  "  Nowa- 
days it  belongs  to  the  complete  duty  of  the  well- 
trained  theologian  to  renounce  the  rationalists  and 
all  their  works;  and  yet  how  poor  our  time  is  in 
comparison  wdth  theirs  —  how  poor  in  strong  men 
capable  of  loyalty  to  an  ideal,  how  poor,  so  far  as 
theology  is  concerned,  in  simple  commonplace 
sincerity  !  "  2 


IV.     Rationalism     adopts    the    language    of 
ORTHODOX  Protestantism;   Hase;  Schleier- 

MACHER. 

Rationalism    had   indeed,    even   before   it   was 
beaten   into    the    open   by    Strauss,    resumed   its 

1.  Schweitzer,  pp.  49-50. 

2.  L.  L,  p.  57. 


1 

150  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 


mask.  We  have  been  tempted  to  see  in  Paulus 
some  features  of  the  Latin;  it  is  an  isjlated  case  :' 
Mr.  Schweitzer  represents  his  next  great  exegete, 
Karl  August  Hase,  as  at  once  the  "  sceptic  of 
rationahsm  ",  and  "  one  of  the  finest  manifesta- 
tions of  German  culture.  "  ^ 

With  Hase,  whose  "  Life  of  Jesus  Primarily  for 
the  Use  of  Students  ^  "  appeared  in  1820,  one  year 
after  the  Life  of  Paulus,  we  return  to  the  mixture 
of  supernaturalism  and  naturahsm.  But  hence- 
forth it  is  more  dehberate,  and  consequently  more 
culpable.  It  is  an  expedient  to  avoid  offending 
religious  souls.  It  insinuates  that  Jesus  perhaps 
survived,  though  He  may  have  arisen  from  the 
dead.  History  and  faith  admit  either  solution. 
The  miracles  of  the  fourth  Gospel  are  authentic, 
because  they  are  related  by  John,  an  eye-witness, 
and  likewise  no  doubt  because  they  are  less  nume- 
rous than  those  of  the  synoptic  Gospels.  The 
miracles  of  the  synoptics  are  to  be  explained  as 
natural  events,  or  rejected  as  resting  upon  a  misun- 
derstanding, on  the  part  of  the  authors,  of  facts 
not  reported  at  first  hand,  but  handed  down  by 
tradition. 

It  is  regrettable,  from  the  Lutheran  point  of 
view,  that  Jesus  did  not  marry.  This  is  how 
German  culture  explains  the  fact  :  "  If  the  true 
grounds  of  the  celibacy  of  Jesus  do  not  lie  hidden 
in  the  special  circumstances  of  His  youth,  the 
conjecture  may  be  permitted  that  He,  from  whose 
religion  was  to  go  forth  the  ideal  view  of  marriage 

1.  L.  L,  p.  59. 


THE    VIEWS    OF    ENLIGHTENED    RATIONALISM       151 

—  SO  foreign  to  the  ideas  of  antiquity  —  found  in 
His  own  time  no  heart  worthy  to  enter  into  cove- 
nant with  Him.  "  ^ 

Hase's  "  Life  of  Jesus,  "  and  his  other  historical 
and  theological  works,  though  all  written,  according 
to  Mr.  Schweitzer,  with  "  clearness,  terseness, 
elegance,  "  ^  are  not  much  read  outside  of  Ger- 
many; Schleiermacher's  ^  writings,  on  the  contrary, 
are  still  very  influential  everywhere.  His  name 
stands  for  that  attempt,  in  which  Hase  took  part, 
to  reconcile  naturalism  with  the  supernatural  and 
which  has  produced  what  is  called  a  Vermittlungs- 
theologie,  a  theology  of  concihation,  or  as  I  would 
be  inchned  to  call  this  Germanic  conception  of 
Liberal  Protestantism,  a  theology  of  compromise. 
It  is  no  longer,  then,  "  enhghtened  Rationahsm,  " 
and  I  should  not  speak  of  it  under  the  heading 
of  this  lecture.  But  the  "  enhghtened  Rationa- 
lism "  which  shows  itself  openly  in  the  work  of 
Paulus,  is  really  not  a  different  thing  from  the 
rationahsm  which  lurks  in  the  equivocal  theories  of 
Schleiermacher.  The  only  difference  it  presents  is 
that,  instead  of  going  alongside  the  supernatural, 
as  it  did  in  the  first  RationaUsts,  it  resolutely  invades 
the  domain  of  the  supernatural  to  steal  its  formulas 
and  to  put  on  the  appearances  of  a  regenerated 
Protestantism,  more  grave,  more  serious,  in  a  word, 
more  Christian.     And  this  new  m.anifestation  of  an 


1.  L.  L,  p.  59. 

2.  L.l,  p.  59- 

3.  Friedrich  Ernst  Daniel  Schleiermacher,  born  in  Breslau, 
Nov.  21,  1768,  died  in  Berlin,  Feb.  12,  1834. 


152  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

assuredly  very  real  religious  feeling,  has  made  an 
impression,  even  outside  of  Germany,  upon  those 
who  were  dissatisfied  with  the  secular  character  of 
modern  Protestantism. 

Schleiermacher  has  perhaps  even  more  authority 
in  certain  French  circles  than  in  his  own  country. 
Auguste  Sabatier,  who  hatched  Modernism,  was  a 
disciple  of  his.  In  his  "  History  of  Rehgious  Ideas 
in  Germany  from  the  xviii  century  to  Our  Days,  " 
M.  Lichtenberger  has  consecrated  to  him  almost 
half  of  one  of  his  three  volumes.  And  in  what  a 
tone  he  tells  of  this  creation  of  a  new  Christian 
Theology!  "  By  proclaiming  that  God  is  directly 
present  to  the  conscience,  that  we  bear  the  treasure 
of  the  Infinite  in  our  bosom,  that  religion  is  the 
consciousness  of  the  finite  as  a  part  of  the  Infinite 
and  that  of  time  as  an  element  of  eternity,  Schleier- 
macher, in  one  bound,  overleaps  that  opposition 
between  the  natural  and  the  supernatural  which 
was  exhausting  the  wisdom  of  his  time.  With  a 
single  stroke  he  upsets  the  house  of  cards  of  Ratio- 
nalism and  the  old  fortress  of  orthodoxy.  "  ^  As 
though  it  were  enough  to  introduce  into  the 
Christian  vocabulary  a  savor  of  Pantheism  to  "  rise 
above  the  antinomy  between  rationahsm  and 
supernaturalism !  "  2 

Schleiermacher  was,  indeed,  open  to  the  suspicion 
of  Spinozism  on  the  one  hand  and  of  orthodox 
reaction  on  the  other;  but  we  must  not  for  that 
reason  regard  him  as  a  theoretician  of  the  golden 


1.  L.  L,  II,  123. 

2.  L,  L,  II,  202. 


THE    VIEWS    OF    ENLIGHTENED    RATIONALISM 


153 


mean.  He  merely  confuses  two  systems.  Con- 
fusion in  Schleiermacher  is  continual,  because  it  is 
willed,  because  it  is  his  whole  personal  contribution 
to  his  system. 

I  may  venture  to  say  that  we  are  now  upon  the 
trail  of  Kantian  influence,  for  the  philosophical 
idea  of  Schleiermacher' s  system  is  borrowed  from 
Kant's    special    brand    of    subjectivism.     In   this 
philosophy,   God's    action,  which   is   infinite    and 
eternal,   can  be  perceived  by  us  only  under  the 
categories    of   time   and   space.     God's    action   is 
ever  supernatural  as  coming  from  God,  natural  in 
so  far  as  it  is  observed  by  us.     Schleiermacher, 
following  this  suggestion,  did  not  hesitate  to  affirm 
that  the  supernatural  manifests  itself  to  the  human 
conscience,  but  comes  within  the  hmits  of  nature, 
just  as  soon  as  it  becomes  an  object  of  thought. 
It  is,  indeed,  true  that  none  of  our  perceptions  are 
infinite,  if  we  consider  them  in  our  mind ;  but  this 
does  not  prevent  our  mind  from  attaining,  in  its 
own   way,   an  infinite  object,   and    from    under- 
standing  something  concerning  the  supernatural. 
Schleiermacher's    great    balloon    could    be    easily 
emptied  by  means  of  a  very  small  bullet.     But 
however  that  be,  what  concerns  us  is  the  apph- 
cation  of  the  new  dogmatics  to  the  person  and  to 
the  history  of  Jesus. 

Schleiermacher,  who  was  sufficiently  indifferent 
about  confessions  of  faith  to  advocate  the  union  of 
Lutherans  and  Calvinists,  regarded  justification  by 
faith  as  the  essence  of  Protestantism.  This  was 
the  incontestable  starting-point  of  the  Reformation, 
and  it  presupposed  a  deep  sentiment  of  sin,  of  the 


154  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

struggle  against  the  flesh,  together  with  an  entire 
confidence  in  Redemption.  All  this  is  living  in  the 
conscience  of  one  who  proclaims  his  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ.  But  what  was  Jesus  Christ?  "  The  ideal 
type  of  mankind,  endowed  with  a  marvelous 
power  of  attraction,  and  enabhng  every  individual 
to  attain  to  a  life  in  God,  whose  reign  He  came  to 
found  upon  earth.  "  ^  Do  not  think,  however, 
that  Schleiermacher  categorically  denies  the  Divine 
nature  of  Christ.  This  would  be  too  outspokenly 
rationalistic;  he  is  resolved  to  hold  a  more  even 
balance.  His  plan,  announced  without  circum- 
locution and  rigorously  adhered  to,  consists  in 
avoiding  two  reefs  :  denying  the  divinity  of  Christ 
or  despoiling  Him  of  human  nature.  With  this 
criterion,  he  will  never  be  embarrassed.  We 
might  also  adopt  it,  if  its  terms  were  sincere,  and 
if  the  purpose  was  not  to  admit  nothing  which 
would  involve  the  supernatural.  It  is  one  thinsf  to 
make  a  distinction  between  the  two  natures  of 
Christ,  another  to  insinuate  that  the  Incarnation 
does  not  belong  to  the  supernatural  order. 

What  could  result  from  a  study  of  the  texts,  in 
one  who  had  such  dispositions?  Theories  may 
suffer  some  vagueness.  In  presence  of  facts  one 
has  to  make  up  one's  mind,  unless  decided  before- 
hand to  make  them  fit  in  with  a  preconceived  idea 
or  to  look  upon  them  as  indifferent.  Schleier- 
macher was  so  decided;  facts  counted  for  nothing 
in  presence  of  a  conviction  born  in  the  depths  of  a 
conscience  which  was  in  contact  with  the  Infinite. 

1.    LiCHTENBERGER,    op.    L,    II,    226. 


THE    VIEWS    OF    ENLIGHTENED    RATIONALISM       155 

Schleiermacher  began  the  study  of  the  history 
of  Our  Lord  as  early  as  1819,  when  he  first  lectured 
upon  the  subject.  But  his  "  Life  of  Jesus  "  did 
not  appear  until  1864,  thirty  years  after  his  death. 
It  had  to  be  reconstructed  from  students'  note- 
books; but  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  it 
represents  his  thought  as  far  as  his  thought  can  be 
penetrated.  He  carefully  refrains  from  indicating 
how  much  of  the  miraculous  he  would  keep  in  the 
Gospel;  the  word > miracle  remains,  the  reality 
disappears.  He  avoids,  indeed,  naturahstic  expla- 
nations. He  insists  on  the  spiritual  power  of  Jesus, 
which  was  capable  of  affecting  even  the  body. 
And,  anyhow,  what  matters  it  whether  a  miracle 
was  wrought  or  not?  That  is  said  even  of  the 
Resurrection.  "Whether  Jesus  survived  the  crucifix- 
ion, or  arose  from  the  dead;  departed  from  His  dis- 
ciples before  He  died,  or  ascended  into  heaven,  after 
a  resurrection,  does  not  interest  faith.  Schleier- 
macher really  held  that  Jesus  survived;  but  this 
did  not  prevent  him  from  talking  of  the  Resurrec- 
tion. And  here  is  something  even  stranger.  H 
his  Christ  is  not  God,  He  is  not  altogether  a  man 
either.  The  prayer  in  Gethsemani  did  not  corres- 
pond with  the  ideal  of  Schleiermacher;  so  he 
rules  it  out  as  unhistorical,  justifying  his  position 
by  the  fact  that  St.  John  does  not  relate  it. 

Mr.  Schweitzer  is  right.  The  Rationalists  were 
more  honest.  But  it  should  be  added  that  they 
were  less  German.  They  were  now  definitely 
defeated.  Schleiermacher  satisfied  the  rationahstic 
instinct  by  dispensing  with  a  belief  in  miracles, 
and  he  satisfied  piety  with  his  deeply  rehgious  and 


156  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

resolutely  Protestant  meditations.  Besides,  the 
excesses  of  enlightened  Rationalism  were  to  be 
denounced  seven  years  after  the  appearance  of 
Paulus'  Life  of  Jesus  by  the  radical  criticism 
pf  David  Frederick  Strauss. 

At  the  end  of  the  lecture  I  experience  a  certain 
confusion.  I  would  not  have  you  think  that  I 
have  been  jousting  against  wind-mills  created  by 
my  imagination,  or  setting  up  straw  men  for  the 
pleasure  of  knocking  them  down.  It  is  a  fact  that 
this  old  exegesis,  which  pretended  to  substitute  for 
the  exegesis  of  the  Church  the  results  of  an  enlight- 
ened reason,  is  abandoned  by  all.  Here  we  have 
but  to  record  its  failure.  When  we  meet  in  the 
critical  schools  we  are  studying  discoveries  in 
philology  or  history  which  may  be  regarded  as 
certain,  we  shall  not  hesitate  to  pay  our  homage 
to  the  indefatigable  activity  of  the  Germans.  We 
have  not  yet  seen  anything  of  the  kind.  In  the 
condemnations  we  have  formulated,  we  have 
almost  conformed  our  verdict  to  that  of  countrymen 
of  those  old  exegetes.  We  are  not  more  severe  than 
they ;  we  differ  from  them  only  in  refusing  to  regard 
contradictions  and  a  lack  of  a  sense  of  responsibility 
as  a  naturd  excuse. 


FIFTH  LECTURE 

STRAUSS'S   MYTHOLOGICAL 
INTERPRETATION    OF    THE    GOSPEL 

What  we  have  to  say  in  this  lecture  will  group 
itself  round  one  name,  that  of  David  Friedrich 
Strauss ;  indeed,  to  give  anything  like  an  adequate 
idea  of  the  person  and  work  of  this  very  influential 
exegete  we  would  need  much  more  than  an  hour. 
We  shall  not  renounce  all  hope  of  drawing  a  true 
picture,  although  Mr.  Schweitzer  puts  Strauss 
among  "  those  German  thinkers  who  must  always 
remain  foreign  and  unintelhgible  to  the  French 
mind  ^  ".  With  Mr.  Schweitzer's  help  we  shall 
first  study  the  man  and  his  work  as  a  whole, 
and  afterwards  deal  with  his  first  Life  of  Jesus, 
which  opened  up  new  ways  by  its  application  of 
the  mythological  system  to  the  whole  New  Testa- 
ment. 

L  Life  of  Strauss. 

Strauss  was  born  in  1808  at  Ludwigsburg  in 
Wurtemberg.  He  belonged  to  that  race  of  Swabia 
which  in  the  XIX  century  gave  to  Germany  a 
whole  school  of  pensive  poets  attached  to  the 
traditions  of  the  Middle  Ages.     His  father  was  a 

1.  Op.  I.,  p.  108,  note  5. 


158  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

Protestant  who  strongly  believed  in  the  expiatory 
power  of  the  Redemption,  which  was  in  his  own 
case  an  opportune  remedy  for  regrettable  con- 
duct; his  mother,  on  the  other  hand,  saw  in  Jesus 
only  a  sage,  but  she  tried  to  imitate  Him.  Of  the 
two  systems  of  exegesis  which  contested  for  su- 
premacy in  the  Strauss  family,  the  better  was  the 
more  poorly  represented.  David  Friedrich  was  at 
first  much  attracted  to  that  form  of  mysticism 
which  we  call  theosophy  or  occultism.  He  made 
a  journey  to  see  Justinus  Koerner,  who  put  him 
into  magnetic  relations  with  the  "  prophetess  of 
Prevorst.  "  He  himself  tells  us  of  the  credulity 
with  which  he  read  Jacob  Boehme,  the  theoso- 
phist  :  "  I  beheved  in  the  words  of  Jacob  Boehme; 
my  faith  was  as  strictly  supernatural  as  ever  can 
have  been  that  of  any  behever  in  the  Prophets  and 
Apostles;  in  fact,  I  thought  that  his  knowledge 
reached  depths  unto  which  the  Bible  itself  did 
not  attain,  and  bore  more  distinctly  the  stamp  of 
immediate  revelation  ^  ".  This  juvenile  enthu- 
siasm is  not  surprising  in  one  brought  up  in  a 
system  which  leaves  every  one  free  to  appreciate 
the  action  of  the  Holy  Ghost  according  to  taste 
and  feeling. 

Perhaps  some  of  you,  Gentlemen,  recalling  the 
story  of  a  Lamennais  or  a  Kenan,  imagine  that  a 
painful  struggle  must  have  taken  place  in  the  soul 
of  Strauss  before  lie  openly  broke  with  the  faith 
of  his  youth.     If  so,  you  are  beginning  to  lose  your 


1.    Ges.  Sckrift.,    I,    p.   125    f.,    in    Levy,    David-Frederic 
Strauss,  la  vie  et  Vceuvre,  Paris  1910. 


STRAUSS    AND    THE    MYTHOLOGICAL  159 

foot-hold;  Germans  are  not  Frenchmen.  Besides, 
it  was  not  rationalism  which  seduced  Strauss;  it 
was  what  M.  Levy  calls  a  romantic  (which  means 
a  pantheistic)  conception  of  Christianity.  For  a 
while  he  w^as  under  the  influence  of  Schelhng,  who 
taught  him  that  the  incarnation  of  God  was  from 
eternity,  and  that  the  incarnation  of  God  in  Jesus 
Christ  was  only  a  symbol.  He  was  captivated, 
indeed,  by  the  ideahsm  of  Schleiermacher ;  but  he 
saw  that  this  new  theology,  notwithstanding  its 
claim  to  reconcile  mysticism  with  facts,  was  getting 
away  from  the  traditional  faith  and  simply  ignoring 
history.  He  adhered  finally  to  the  system  of  Hegel. 
While  at  the  ''  lower  seminary  "  at"  Blaubeuron, 
from  1821  to  1825,  with  Vischer,  Markhn,  Binder, 
and  Zimmermann,  and  following  the  lectures  of 
Baur  (who  was  still  uncertain  of  his  way),  he  began 
to  study  with  his  friends  Hegel's  new  '"  specula- 
tive "  philosophy.  They  eagerly  read  and  com- 
mented upon  his  WTitings.  And  they  remained 
faithful  to  him;  even  when  provided  w^ith  positions 
as  pastors,  Strauss  and  Marklin  did  not  know  very 
well  whether  they  were  still  Christians;  but  they 
w^ere  unmistakabty   Hegelians. 

You  perhaps  asked  yourselves,  at  our  last  meet- 
ing, if  the  Rationahsts  still  regarded  themselves 
as  part  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  They  admitted 
the  existence  of  God  and  the  immortality  of  the 
soul;  held  to  certain  facts  of  the  Gospel,  whatever 
might  be  the  interpretation  placed  upon  them ;  be- 
lieved in  Jesus  Christ,  whatever  they  thought  about 
His  person ;  and  they  were  made  to  feel  that  their 
standing  w^as  good  in  their  reHgious  communities, 

11 


160  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

Marklin's  father,  himself  a  prelate  and  general 
superintendent  of  Heilbronn,  and  at  the  same  time 
a  Hberal,  a  Deist  and  a  disciple  of  Kant,  suffered 
when  he  saw  his  son  give  up  his  faith.  ^  The  soul 
of  the  younger  Markhn  was  agitated.  How  could 
one  exercise  the  functions  of  a  pastor  of  the  holy 
Gospel,  especially  how  could  one  preach,  when 
unable  to  confess  any  other  incarnation  than  the 
identity  of  God  and  man  ?  He  wrote  :  "  Is  it 
not  the  duty  of  a  servant  of  the  Church  not  to 
have  two  consciences  exterior  one  to  the  other 
and  contradictory  :  a  personal  conscience  and  an 
ecclesiastical  conscience  ?  "  2  Were  one  of  his 
auditors  to  ask  for  explanations  and  he  were  to 
say  what  he  really  thought,  he  would  lay  himself 
open  to  the  further  question,  "  But,  sir,  why  do 
you  teach  differently  in  church?  "  "  I  could 
not,  "  so  Marklin  reasons,  "  expect  him  to  grasp 
as  we  do,  in  regard  to  intellectual  concepts  and 
representative  notions,  the  identity  of  contradic- 
tories :  that  would  suppose  a  methodical  educa- 
tion in   philosophy...  " 

Strauss  did  not  think  for  a  moment  of  teaching 
Hegelianism  in  the  pulpit;  he  continued  to  teach 
Lutheran  theology.  He  asked  whether  the  great 
preachers  of  the  day  were  more  sincere,  when  they 
commented  on  the  Gospel  in  the  cultivated  manner, 
that  is,  according  to  Rationahst  concepts.  Why 
not  go  to  the  end  of  the  method  ?     Here  is  the  text : 


1.  Levy,  op.  L,  33. 

2.  LfevY,  op.  I.,  35,  note  1 

3.  Schweitzer,  p.  69.. 


STRAUSS    A^B    THE    MYTHOLOGICAL  161 

When  I  consider  how  far  even  in  intellectual 
preaching  the  expression  is  inadequate  to  the  true 
essence  of  the  concept,  it  does  not  seem  to  me  to 
matter  much  if  one  goes  even  a  step  farther.  I,  at 
least,  go  about  the  matter  without  the  least  scru- 
pule,  and  cannot  ascribe  this  to  a  mere  want  of 
sincerity  in  myself.  "  i  Strauss  remained  ever 
faithful  to  this  (Hegehan)  sincerity. 

In  1860,  he  wrote  to  his  friend,  Pastor  Rapp  : 
"  The  first  function  of  the  ecclesiastic  is  incontesta- 
bly  to  teach  the  community  the  faith  of  the  com- 
munity. "  2  That  is,  indeed,  his  function;  but  his 
first  duty  is  to  resign  his  function  when  he  cannot 
honestly  discharge  its  obhgations.  Strauss  asked 
in  what  he  was  reprehensible;  he  rendered  to 
Csesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's,  by  teaching,  as 
a  pastor  of  the  German  State,  the  government 
doctrine;  and  he  rendered  unto  God  the  things  that 
are  God's,  by  adhering  exclusively,  in  his  private 
capacity,  to  Hegehan  philosophy.  Lutheranism 
had,  then,  become  one  of  the  branches  of  the  admin- 
istration and  was  ceasing  to  be  the  domain  of 
God !  There  Vvas,  however,  a  simpler  method  for 
young  German  pastors  to  get  out  of  such  an 
embarrassing  position,  says  Hausrath  in  his  Life  of 
Strauss;  it  was  to  go  to  Schleiermacher  and  with 
him  to  insist  less  on  thought  than  on  sentiment.  ^ 
And  this  reflection  explains  beforehand  the  com- 
promise of  the  Liberals.     Strauss  was  to  take  it 


1.  Schweitzer,  p.  69. 

2.  Levy,  quoting  Ausgetv.  Brieje,  p.  40S. 

3.  Levy,  p.  41. 


162  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

into  account  later  on ;  at  first  he  was  carried  away 
by  his  Hegehan  fervor.  He  had,  however,  not  yet 
heard  Hegel;  he  set  out  to  visit  him  in  Berlin,  but 
arrived  a  few  days  after  the  master  died  of  the 
cholera,  November  14,  1831. 

Despite  his  assurance,  Strauss  did  not  feel  that 
he  was  in  his  place  as  a  pastor;  and  when  he 
became  a  ''  Repetent  "  of  theology  at  Tubingen, 
he  could  not  make  up  his  mind  to  discharge  the 
duties  of  that  office,  although  it  allow^ed  of  more 
liberty  of  thought.  He  explains  :  "  If  I  know 
myself  rightly,  my  position  in  regard  to  theology  is 
that  what  interests  me  in  theology  causes  offence, 
and  what  does  not  cause  offence  is  indifferent  to 
me  ".  ^  So  he  employed  his  time  teaching  the  doc- 
trine of  Hegel.  The  philosophical  faculty  was 
displeased;  he  was  forced  back  upon  theology. 
Then,  in  two  years,  from  1833  to  1834,  he  wrote  ^ 
the  Life  of  Jesus  critically  examined.  ^  This 
appeared  in  1835. 

After  what  we  have  said  about  rationalism,  even 
in  the  German  pulpit,  you  will  be  astonished  to 
hear  that  Strauss's  Life  of  Jesus  did  not  cause  less 
scandal  among  Protestants  than  did  Kenan's  Life 
of  Jesus  among  Catholics.  There  was  such  an 
uprising  that  Strauss  was  removed  from  his  post  as 
"  Repetent._"  He  himself  wavered;  and  in  his 
third  edition,   in   1838,   he  withdrew  his   denials 


1.  Schweitzer,  p.  71.  » 

2.  Except  the  final  dissertation. 

3.  The  title  of  George  Eliot's  translation  (Macmillan  1902) 
of  the  fourth  German  edition  of  Das  Lehen  Jesu  kriiisch 
bearheitet,  2  vol.  in-S^,  Tubingen. 


STRAUSS    AND    THE    MYTHOLOGICAL  163 

regarding  the  authenticity  of  the  fourth  Gospel, 
"He  longed  for  peace,  for  he  had  suffered  more 
than  his  enemies  suspected  or  his  friends  knew.  "  ^ 
In  1841  he  wrote  to  Rapp  :  '"  If  I  had  been  offered 
then  (probably  about  1837)  a  living  pension  on 
condition  that  I  should  pubhsh  nothing  more,  I 
believe  J  should  have  accepted  it.  "  ^  He  accepted 
more  willingly  still  an  appointment  to  a  chair  in  the 
University  of  Zurich  in  1839.  But  the  orthodox 
and  pietist  parties  caused  the  appointment  to  be 
withdrawn.  The  affront  was  not  even  dissem- 
bled by  the  offering  of  a  pension  of  1,000  francs, 
which  he  forced  himself  to  accept. 

Opposition  had  at  first  shaken  him;  after  his 
disappointment  at  Zurich  he  broke  more  completely 
with  Cliristianity.     As  we  shall  see,  he  had  affected 
in  his  Life  of  Jesus  to  preserve  the  words  of  Christia- 
nity, while  providing  them  with  a  Hegelian  inter- 
pretation.    His  second  great  work,  his  "  Christian 
Theology  in  its  Historical  Development  and  in  its 
Antagonism  to  Modern  Scientific  Knowledge  ,  "  ^ 
was  pubhshed  in  1840-1841.     He  wrote  of  it 
Rapp  :  "  I  have  surrounded  theism  on  every  s 
and  I  have  carried  it  by  assault;  I  have  frr 
hoisted  the  flag  of  pantheism.     The  only 
eration  which  decided  me  to  soften,  here  and  1 
certain  expressions  m.ore  than  I  should  have  lik 
is  that  I  feared  to  cause  the  interdiction  of  i 


1.  Schweitzer,  p.  72. 

2.  Levy,  p.  75,  note  1,  citing  Ausgea-.  Briefe,  p.  110. 

3.  Die  christliche  Glaubenslehre  in  ihrer  geschichtlicher 
Entwickelung  und  im  Kampfe  niit  der  modernen  Wissenschaf. 
dargestellt,  Tubingen,  2  vol. 


164  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

book  1.  "  He  had  to  render  unto  Csesar  the  things 
that  were  Caesar's.  And  the  things  that  were 
•Caesar's  were  everything,  since  the  Prussian  State 
^as  the  real  deity  of  Hegel.  That  good  German 
of  the  golden  mean,  Mr.  Hausrath,  protests  againsi 
this  rupture  with  the  national  rehgion  :  a  patriot 
must  not  show  lack  of  interest  in  the  convictions 
of  his  people.  Compromise  again.  But  at  the  time 
Strauss  would  have  none  of  it :  "  No  man  can  serve 
two  masters.  The  citizen  will  never  serve  the 
State  with  his  whole  soul  until  he  is  convinced  that 
the  divine  is  within  human  society,  and  that  the 
true  life  is  lived  here  below  ^.  " 

This  true  hfe  of  Strauss  was  not  all  happiness. 
His  marriage  w^ith  the  singer  Agnese  Schebest 
(1842)  was  most  unfortunate;  they  were  finally 
divorced. 

In  1848  the  troubles  started  by  the  French 
revolution  of  February  brought  him  into  ptlitics. 
He  entered  the  lis+s  in  behalf  of  a  German  unity,  to 
be  attained  under  the  direction  of  Prussia  and  apart 

">m  Austria.     He  was  once  more  in  contact  with 

people.     As  a  young  pastor,  he  had  decided  to 

■h  to  his  flock  the  traditional  doctrine  in  which 

longer  believed.     As  a  candidate  ftr  the 

Kfort  parliament,  he  had  no  scrupule  about 

fcering  the  pietistic  sympathies  of  the  rural  popu- 

lon  by  affirming  his  respect  for  the  traditions  of 

e  Church.  ^ 


1.  Ausgew.  Br.,  p.  90,  ia  Levy,  p.  129,  note  2. 

2.  Levy,  p.  134. 

3.  Levy,  p.   157. 


STRAUSS    AND    THE    MYTHOLOGICAL  165 

He  was  defeated,  but  he  succeeded  in  getting 
sent  to  the  Wiirtemberg  Chamber  of  Deputies. 
Here  his  enthusiasm  for  the  new  ideas  soon  changed 
into  a  profound  distaste  for  democracy.  Despite 
his  platform,  he  ordinarily  voted  with  the  country- 
squires  and  the  prelates.  He  has  expressed  his 
contempt  for  the  crowd  in  a  pretty  formula,  confid- 
ed to  his  friend  Vischer  :  "  A  duty  towards  the 
pubhc  or  towards  mankind  is  for  me  an  absurdity. 
The  mind  acts  hke  the  oak  which  casts  its  acorns 
to  the  ground,  when  the  soil  and  the  season  are 
favorable,  without  concern  regarding  the  dear 
hogdom  (Schweinheit)  which  down  below  stirs 
around  it.  "  ^ 

Nevertheless,  in  an  official  way,  he  made  a  great 
deal  of  the  "  dear  hogdom.  "  During  a  considerable 
time  he  was  less  occupied  with  theology  than  with 
an  attempt  to  regain  the  heart  of  the  German 
people,  and  even  when  he  studied  the  ancient  theo- 
logians, it  was  always  with  the  preoccupation  of 
serving  the  cause  of  Germanism.  His  Biography  of 
Ulrich  von  Hutten  (1856)  ^  glorifies  a  genuinely 
German  hero,  who  united  reform  and  humanism. 
According  to  M.  Levy,  "  it  is  upon  the  national 
character  of  the  rehgious  revolution  that  he 
especially  dwells.  The  Reformation  is  the  most 
decisive  act  ever  performed  by  the  German  people... 
Germany  is  truly  German  only  within  the  hmits  in 
which  Protestantism  has  freed  her  from  the  yoke 


1.  Levy,  p.  170,  note  3,  citing  Ausgev^'.  Br.,  p.  309,  letter 
€f  Oct.  24,  1852. 

2.  Ulrich  von  Hutten,  2  vol. 


166  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

of    Rome...    People    may     contest    our    title    of 
Christians;  but  we  will  be  real  Protestants  and 


sincere  men. 


1 


Reimarus,  whom  Strauss  next  studied  (1860)  -,  is 
again  for  him  a  type  of  the  thoroughly  German 
scholar.  And  when  he  wrote  a  second  Life  of 
Jesus,  nearly  thirty  years  after  the  first  (1864),  he 
entitled  it,  "  The  Life  of  Jesus  for  the  German 
People.  "  ^ 

The  German  people  was  forging  unity  for  itself 
with  fire  and  sword.  In  thS  war  between  Prussia 
and  Austria,  Strauss  had  again  sided  against 
Austria,  guilty  of  Catholicism.  When  the  war  of 
1870  broke  out,  he  had  just  published  a  book  on 
Voltaire.  ^  Renan  felt  called  on  to  congratulate 
him,  even  after  the  beginning  of  hostilities;  he 
wrote  July  31,  1870;  "  Few  readings  have  afforded 
me  such  pleasure  as  the  perusal  of  these  pages,  full 
of  wit,  keenness  and  tact,  in  which  the  real  char- 
acter of  our  great  man  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
so  often  misunderstood,  is  admirably  re-establish- 
ed. '■"  Ho  added  :  "  You  doubtless  think  as  I  do 
that  the  duty  of  the  friend  of  justice  and  of  truth 
is,  while  going  about  all  his  appointed  tasks,  to 
disengage  himself  from  that  narrow  patriotism 
which  contracts  the  heart  and  vitiates  the  judg- 
ment.   "   ^     To   this   private   letter,   which   went 


.  1,  Levy,  p.  187. 

2.  Reimarus   iind  seine   Schulzschrift  fiir  die   verniinjtigeu 
Verekrer  Gottes,  Leipzig. 

3.  Das  Lehen  Jesu  fiir  das  deutscke  Volk, 

4.  Voltaire,  Berlin,  1870. 

5.  Levy,  p.  41. 


STRAUSS    AND    THE    MYTHOLOGICAL  167 

beyond  the  most  extended  allowable  limits  of 
French  courtesy,  Strauss  answered  by  an  open 
letter,  pubhshed  on  August  18  in  the  "  Augsburg 
Gazette.  "  It  is  a  satire  upon  the  GalHc  tempera- 
ment ;  Renan  replied  with  excessive  indulgence. 
Strauss  wrote  a  second  letter ;  and  then  put  on  sale 
Kenan's  letter  with  the  two  he  had  written  him- 
self, —  for  the  benefit  of  German  invalids  !  Moreo- 
ver, he  complained  of  the  hesitation  to  bombard  the 
great  Babylon  on  the  banks  of  the  Seine.  He  wrote 
to  Visher  on  November  17  :  "  If  Paris  is  reduced  only 
by  famine,  it  may  be  claimed  that  the  barbarians 
did  not  dare  to  fire  upon  the  capital  of  Civiliza- 
tion. "  1  He  had  now  reconquered  the  hearts  of 
liis  fellow-countrymen.  It  was  he  himself  who 
next  broke  with  them.  In  his  last  work  (in  1872), 
"  The  Old  Faith  and  the  New  2,  "  he  wished  to  write 
the  catechism  of  those  who  no  longer  want  dogmas 
or  churches.  To  the  que:.tions,  "  Are  we  still 
Chi^istians?  "  he  answers,  "  No.  "  But  to  his 
second  quesition,  ''  Have  we  still  a  religion?  "  he  is 
prepared  to  answer,  "  Yes,  "  if  it  be  granted  him 
that  the  feeling  of  dependence,  of  self-surrender, 
of  inner  freedom,  which  has  sprung  from  pantheism 
can  be  called  a  religion.  But  his  pantheism  is  no 
longer  that  of  Hegel,  who  has  by  this  time  been  torn 
to  pieces  by  his  own  disciples;  to  explain  the  world, 
Strauss  has  become  a  disciple  of  Darwin.  As 
regards  the  duty  of  man,  it  consists  in  studying 
nature,  so  as  to  conquer  it,  and  in  subordinating 

2.  Levy,  p.  250,  note. 

3.  Der  alte  und  der  neue  Glauhe,  Leipzig. 


168  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

oneself  to  the  interests  of  the  race  ^.  Since,  more- 
over, he  does  not  beheve  in  the  society  of  nations, 
Germany  remains  the  proximate  ideal  of  this  state 
of  mind,  in  which  religion  is  replaced  by  science, 
worship  by  literature  and  music.  The  new  phil- 
osophical idol  of  the  Germans,  Nietzsche,  laughed 
at  him. 

He  died  February  8,  1874  at  Ludwigsburg. 


II.  Strauss's  first  Life  of  Jesus. 

Perhaps  it  is  difficult  for  a  Frenchman  to  under- 
stand Strauss ;  it  is  still  harder  for  us  Frenchmen 
to  admire  him.  Let  us  leave  it  to  God  to  judge  his 
life;  we  shall  here  endeavor  to  appreciate  the  work 
with  which  we  are  chiefly  concerned,  his  first  Life 
of  Jesus,  that  which,  in  1835,  marked  the  advent 


1.  One  would  imagine  it  was  Marcus  Aurelius  speaking, 
in  a  somewhat  modernized  form  :  "  Do  not  forget  at  any 
moment  that  thou  and  all  thou  perceivest  in  thee  and  around 
thee,  what  happens  to  thee  and  to  others,  is  not  something 
fragmentary,  detached  and  without  cohesion,  a  wild  chaos 
of  atoms,  or  accidents,  but  that  all  proceeds  according  to  eter- 
nal laws  from  the  primitive  Unique  source  of  all  life,  of  all 
reason  and  of  all  good,  — ■  that  is  the  essence  of  religion.  " 
The  Stoics,  more  logical,  did  not  speak  of  fighting  nature. 
But  it  would  be  useless  to  object  to  Strauss  that  Stoic  opti- 
mism and  Darwinian  pessimism  are  contradictories.  What 
can  that  matter  to  him?  (Levy,  p.  267,  note  1).  M.  Levy 
thus  sums  up  the  new  faith  :  "  Respect  for  the  human  race, 
this  is  what  he  calls  morals;  respect  for  the  universal  Reason, 
this  is  what  he  calls  religion.  "  (1.  1,  p.  267).  M.  Loisy,  in 
his  book  La  religion,  arrives  at  similar  conclusions,  but  lays 
stress  on  Humanity,  more  than  on  the  Universe. 


STRAUSS    AND    THE    MYTHOLOGICAL  169 

of   the   mythological   interpretation    of   the    New 
Testament. 

The  method  employed  appears  to  have  been 
indicated  by  the  situation  of  scientific  exegesis  at 
the  time.  The  supernatural  explanation  of  the 
facts,  such  as  the  Catholic  Church  persists  in, 
was  more  or  less  openly  abandoned  in  the  Lives  of 
Jesus  pubhshed  by  Protestants.  We  have  seen 
how  Paulus,  to  save  the  reality  of  the  miracles, 
had  felt  obliged  to  give  them  a  purely  natural 
explanat'on,  and  that  the  sentimental  protestations 
of  Schleiermacher  could  not  hide  from  clear-sighted 
people  the  fact  that  he  had  abandoned  all  distinc- 
tively Christian  behefs.  Now  Strauss  was  very 
clear-sighted,  and  he  no  longer  believed  in  anything. 
His  whole  design  consists  in  placing  in  presence  of 
each  other  the  supernatural  explanation  and  the 
explanation  of  the  Naturalists.  He  is  less  bent  on 
destroying  supernaturalism ;  it  is  regarded  as 
refuted  beforehand.  But  he  unmercifully  criticizes 
the  expedients  proposed  by  Paulus.  He  reestab- 
lishes with  a  steady  hand  the  true  meaning  of  the 
texts,  that  is  to  say,  their  supernatural  content. 
And  then  he  proposes  to  the  reader  the  hypothesis 
of  the  myth.  The  Evangehsts,  he  urges,  certainly 
intended  to  relate  miracles;  you  cannot  admit 
miracles ;  recognize,  then,  that  the  events  are  beyond 
your  appreciation.  You  have  lio  right  to  declare 
historical  a  fact  which  you  have  just  substituted 
for  that  which  is  affirmed  by  the  documents.  To 
reject  a  miraculous  incident  is  not  to  rob  the 
Church  of  its  patrimony,  nor  even  to  deprive  her 
of  useful  teaching.    The  RationaUstic  explanation 


170  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

is  not  only  a  baseless  fiction,  but  a  fiction  void 
of  any  religious  value. 

Lot  us  take  an  example.  ^ 

When  the  three  synoptic  Gospels  relate  the 
Transfiguration,  their  intention  is  to  glorify  Jesus, 
therein  shown  to  be  greater  than  Moses  and 
Elias,  who  did  Him  homage;  moreover,  they  wish 
to  put  on  record  that  Jesus,  already  illuminated 
with  supernatural  splendor,  w^as  declared  by  a 
heavenly  voice  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  The  Ration- 
ahsts,  for  their  part,  tell  us  that  Jesus  had  an 
appointment  wdth  two  unknown  personages.  Paul- 
us   does   not   try   to    designate    them   otherwise; 


1.  Littre's  Vie  de  Jesus  (3th  ed.  in  1864)  is  the  translation 
of  the  third  German  edition  of  the  work  of  Strauss;  this 
differs  from  the  two  first  editions,  as  we  have  seen.  The 
principal  change  of  this  third  edition,  of  1838,  concerns  the 
fourth  Gospel.  Before  Strauss,  the  rationalists  admitted 
without  hesitation  that  this  Gospel  was  the  work  of  John, 
the  son  of  Zebedee.  C.  Th.  Bretschneider  had  raised  doubts 
in  1820,  in  his  Prohahiliora  de  evangelii  et  epistolarum  Joannis 
Aposioli  indole  et  origine.  But  he  had  no  following;  Schleier- 
macher  had  taken  under  his  protection  the  Gospel  of  the 
spirit.  The  criticism  of  Strauss  had  applied  itself  to  ruining 
the  authority  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  The  reaction  was  so 
strong  that  in  his  third  edition,  he  made  concessions  to  the 
reigning  opinion  :  "  Not  "  he  says  "  that  I  am  convinced 
that  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  authentic,  but  I  am  not  so  con- 
vinced that  it  is  not.  "  [Litire,  p.  12).  But  in  subsequent 
editions  he  came  back  to  his  negative  position,  and  it  is 
doubtless  on  this  point  that  he  has  exerted  most  influence. 
The  third  German  edition  gave  in  its  text  the  discussions 
with  the  opponents  of  the  first  Life.  The  third  edition  of 
the  French  translation,  with  a  preface  by  Littre,  appeared 
in  the  same  year  as  the  second  Life  of  Jesus  by  Strauss. 
This  latter  was  immediately  translated  into  French  by 
Nefftzerand  Gh.  Dollfus,  2  vols.  in-S",  Paris,  Lacroix,  1864. 

[In  the  fourth  edition,  of  1840,  Strauss's  earlier,  radical 
readings  are  restored.  It  is  this  fourth  edition,  as  translated 
by  George  Eliot,  that  is  here  quoted.    Note  of  the  translator.] 


STRAUSS    AND    THE    MYTHOLOGICAL  171 

Kuinoel  regards  them  as  friends  of  Nicodemus ;  Veix- 
turini  as  Essenes.  Before  disappearing  in  a ''  bright 
morning  cloud,  "  at  a  moment  when  Jesus  was 
surrounded  by  an  ''  unwonted  brillancy  proceeding 
from  the  rising  sun  ",  one  of  the  individuals  uttered 
out  of  the  cloud  the  words  :  "  This  is  my  beloved 
son.  "  Strauss  rightly  remarks  that  "  the  disciples 
must  have  been  so  far  acquainted  with  the  appear- 
ance of  the  morning  beams  on  the  mountains 
of  their  native  land,  as  to  be  able  to  distinguish  them 
from  heavenly  glory...  The  one  of  the  two  allies 
who  spoke  the  words  to  the  disciples  out  of  the 
cloud,  must  have  permitted  himself  to  use  an  unwor- 
thy mystification.  "  What,  he  asks,  would  be  the 
spiritual  profit  of  such  stories?  "  Since  then  the 
text  forbids  a  natural  interpretation,  while  it  is 
impossible  to  maintain  as  historical  the  superna- 
tural interpretation  which  alone  it  sanctions,  w^e 
must  apply  ourselves  to  a  critical  examination  of 
its  statements.  "  ^ 

What  is  the  result  of  this  critical  examination? 
The  critic  who  has  said  so  much  against  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  begins  by  taking  note  of  its  silence;  the 
author,  he  contends,  would  have  included  the 
Transfiguration  in  his  history  if  it  had  really  taken 
place.  Moreover,  if  the  apostles  had  been  coming 
directly  from  a  seen?  in  which  Ehas  had  actually 
appeared,  they  would  not  have  asked  :  "  Why  then 
say  the  scribes  that  Elias  must  first  come?  " 
Although  these  two  arguments  are  entirely  worth- 
less, Strauss  finds  them  sufficient  to  prove  the 
historical  character  of  the  event. 

1.  Life  of  Jesus,  pp.  540,  ff. 


172  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

The  way  in  which  the  Transfiguration  is  hand- 
led is  not  an  exceptional  procedure;  all  the  inci- 
dents of  the  Gospel  are  thus  dealt  with.  Strauss's 
Life  of  Jesus  is  not  a  history  of  Jesus;  it  is, 
rather,  as  its  sub-title  indicates,  a  critical  exami- 
nation of  His  history.  No  attempt  is  made  to 
estabhsh  a  connection  between  the  events,  or  to 
link  them  with  general  history;  they  are  only 
passed  in  review,  each  in  turn.  The  Rationalist 
explanation,  it  is  pointed  out,  is  contrary  to  the 
texts;  the  texts  are  contrary  to  reason;  conse- 
quently the  facts  are  not  historical,  at  least  as 
they  are  related.  To  support  this  negation,  already 
pronounced  by  philosophy,  Strauss  appeals  to  the 
criticism  of  the  Evangelists  compared  with  one 
another.  If  they  are  not  in  agreement  about 
details,  or  if  they  do  not  all  narrate  the  same  event, 
we  are  to  see  in  this  a  proof  or  an  indication  that 
the  fact  is  not  historical,  either  in  its .  details  or 
even  in  its  substance. 

But,  then,  what  are  these  narratives?  Who 
gave  rise  to  them?  Reimarus  had  answered  that 
they  were  to  be  accounted  for  by  what  the  Deists 
called  a  sacerdotal  invention.  But  the  Deists, 
Strauss  remarked,  had  not  understood  the  evident 
good  faith  and  candor  of  the  narrators;  and  they 
attributed  too  much  to  individual  initiative. 
Strauss's  solution  was  that  the  narratives  were 
born  of  the  popular  imagination,  were  "  the  natural 
flower  the  opening  of  which  was  favored  by  a 
spiritual  community.  "  ^     They  were  myths. 

i.  In  Levy,  op.  L,  p.  107,  note  1. 


STRAUSS    AND    THE    MYTHOLOGICAL  17o 

"  We  distinguish  by  the  name  evangelical  my- 
thus,  "  says  Strauss,  "  a  narrative  relating  directly 
or  indirectly  to  Jesus,  which  may  be  considered 
not  as  the  expression  of  a  fact,  but  the  product  of 
an  idea  of  his  earhest  followers.  "  ^  If  the  myth  is 
pure,  the  idea  created  the  very  substance  of  the 
narrative.  But  sometimes  "  a  definite  individual 
fact  has  been  seized  upon  by  religious  enthusiasm, 
and  twined  around  with  mythical  conceptions 
culled  from  the  idea  of  the  Christ.  "  Then  it  is  an 
historical  myth.  For  instance,  Jesus  was  perhaps 
baptized  by  John.  If  so,  the  fact  is  historical; 
tradition  merely  gave  the  event  a  mythical  aspect 
with  the  purpose  of  bestowing  upon  Jesus,  entering 
upon  his  messianic  career,  the  consecration  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  investiture  of  the  Pre- 
cursor. 

The  myths  of  the  Gospel  will  be  found  to  have 
two  sources.  One  is  the  messianic  expectations; 
to  Jesus  were  applied  all  that  men  hoped  to  see 
reahzed  in  the  Messias  and  in  his  work.  The 
other  is  "  that  particular  impression  which  was 
left  by  the  personal  character,  actions,  and  fate  of 
Jesus.  "  2 

The  myth  is,  then,  always  a  spontaneous  for- 
mation in  the  mind  of  a  collectivity,  by  creation  or 
by  anonymous  additions.  There  have  been,  indeed, 
in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  "  premeditated  and 
calculated    inventions    ";    if    thev    have    becQme 


1.  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  86.  (George  Eliot  uses  the  word  my  thus 
instead  of  the  more  objectionable  myth.     Translator's  note.) 

2.  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  86. 


\ 


174  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

mythical,  it  is  by  growth  after  gaining  credence  and 
passing  into  the  tradition  of  a  people  or  of  a  reli- 
gious party.  And  doubtless  the  action  of  the 
writer  is  not  a  negligible  quantity;  he  may  have 
added  details,  amplified  circumstances,  connected 
events.  But  Strauss  does  not  devote  any  attention 
to  such  minutiffi,  except  to  discover  the  myth  which 
forms  the  whole  woof  of  the  life  of  Jesus. 

You  see  that  the  "  Gospel  myth  "  is  not  altogether 
the  same  thing  as  the  Greek  myth.  In  the  stories 
of  the  Gods  of  Olympus,  even  in  those  of  the  heroes 
or  demi-gods  like  Heracles  or  Theseus,  no  one  Lries 
to  find  the  lineaments  of  true  history.  If  the 
works  of  Hercules  answer  to  real  facts,  no  one  could 
tell  which.  Whereas  Strauss  admits  that  one  is 
justified  in  recognizing  a  solidly  established  element 
in  the  history  of  Jesus. 

But  is  not  this  f  alhng  back  into  that  Rationahsm 
which  distinguished  between  the  substance  of  the 
fact  and  the  appearance  which  it  has  taken  on? 
This  is  a  dehcate  point,  to  which  I  call  all  your 
attention.  The  Rationalists  stripped  the  narratives 
of  their  miraculous  circumstances  to  find  history. 
And  it  seems  that  this  is  also  the  procedure  of 
Strauss.  But  whilst  Paulus  attributes  the  transfor- 
mation of  the  facts  to  the  confusion  which  reigned 
in  the  minds  of  witnesses,  a  confusion  which  can 
hardly  bear  upon  anything  but  the  interpretation 
of  the  facts,  their  substance  remaining  intact, 
Strauss  attributes  to  the  tradition  of  the  nascent 
Church  a  truly  creative  power.  It  is  to  this 
popular  tradition  that  Jesus  owes  His  aureola. 
The  New  Testament  writers  reproduce  what  the 


STRAUSS    AND    THE    MYTHOLOGICAL  175 

Christian  commumty  said  about  Christ,  at  a  late 
date.  Consequently,  the  facts  themselves  may 
have  been  simply  invented.  If  criticism  spares 
some  of  them,  it  must  show  that  they  are  likely. 
Moreover,  the  tradition  which  was  able  to  create 
may  a  fortiori  have  added  to  realities.  In  these 
cases,  where  an  historical  ui  derlying  element  is  left, 
the  results  of  the  Rationahstic  and  of  the  Mytholo- 
gical systems  of  interpretation  are  the  same, 
though  they  do  not  explain  the  transformation  ii 
the  same  way.  According  to  Paulus,  misun- 
derstanding arose  at  once;  according  to  Strauss, 
there  was  embellishment  long  after  the  everts 
occurred.  The  misunderstanding  is  attributed  to 
the  Apostles,  the  embellishment  to  subsequent  tra- 
dition. Such  is  the  system  of  Strauss  in  its  main 
features.     What  are  we  to  think  cf  it? 


Let  it  be  noted  first  that  the  word  myth  is  out 
3f  place.  We  must  protest  against  the  use,  in 
connection  with  the  Gospels,  of  a  word  which  for 
those  who  are  versed  in  mythology  connotes  disrep- 
utable conduct.  But  the  word  is  badly  chosen 
for  another  reason.  Mythos,  besides  signifying  the 
antique  legends  which  tell  of  the  birth,  the  unions, 
and  the  adventures  of  the  gods,  —  the  sense  that 
we  usually  attach  to  myth,  —  signifies  also  a  fable 
or  an  apologue.  "  The  fable  is  destined  to  prove 
that  ",  brings  in  the  end  of  iEsop's  fables.  Now 
nobody  takes  fables  for  accounts  of  real  happen- 
ings; and  even  in  this  second  sense,  myth  suggests 

12 


176  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

a  wholly  fictitious  story.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
fable  contains  an  idea  which  is  set  off  by  the  fiction, 
whereas  the  mythological  stories  of  the  gods  have 
no  lesson  to  convey.  In  the  time  of  Strauss, 
indeed,  mythology  was  supposed  to  have  a  symbol- 
ical character;  but  to-day  myths  are  rather  coi^sid- 
ered  as  explanations  of  liturgical  acts  the  meaning 
of  which  had  been  lost.  Myths  have  doubtless 
other  beginnings,  but  all  have  chimerical  happen- 
ings as  their  subject-matter.  Since  Strauss  held 
to  the  historical  character  of  the  principal  features 
of  the  life  of  Jesus,  he  should  have  avoided  the  w^ord 
myth.  If  he  insisted  on  using  it,  it  is  because  he 
wanted  to  represent  the  evangelical  facts  as  repre- 
sentative of  an  idea;  he  used  it  in  the  sense  in  which 
mythos  means  apologue  :  his  myth  is  a  symbolical 
myth.  But  then  the  question  arises,  did  the  poople 
ever  create  such  symbols? 

If  one  wished  to  reason  with  anything  like  rigor, 
one  should  distinguish  between  that  popular 
legend  which  is  called  folk-lore,  and  more  conscious 
additions  made  to  facts  in  order  to  enrich  history 
in  a  given  direction.  It  is  thought  to-day  that 
the  historical  criticism  of  the  beginning  of  the 
XIX  century,  that  of  Niebuhr,  exaggerated  the 
part  of  the  people  in  the  formation  of  legends. 
The  studies  of  M.  Bedier  ^  on  the  chansons  de  geste 
have  certainly  been  a  blow  to  the  theory  of  the 
Grimm  brothers.  It  was  clerics  of  the  sanctuary 
or   junglers    who    composed  these   songs   on  the 


1.  Les   legendes   epiques,   recherches    sur   la   formation   des 
ehaneons  de  gestCj  4  volumes,  Paris. 


STRAUSS    AND    THE    MYTHOLOGICAL  177 

heroic  exploits  of  the  ancient  knights;  the  people 
gave  them  an  enthusiastic  reception;  but  they 
did  not  create  them,  nor  make  them  out  of  already 
existing  elements.  But  when  mistakes  of  this 
kind  have  been  made,  it  has  usually  been  in 
cases  where  it  was  deemed  possible  to  ascribe 
to  the  imagination  of  a  group  what  was  in  reality 
the  creation  of  individuals ;  it  never  occurred  to  any 
one  to  regard  erudition  as  the  source  of  popular 
legends.  Folk-lore  is  varied,  capricious,  sponta- 
neous; it  does  not  follow  a  systematic  method,  it 
does  not  draw  on  books,  it  never  attributed  to 
Roland  the  gallant  deeds  of  the  heroes  of  the  Iliad 
or  of  the  ^neid.  Such  literary  reminiscences  must 
be  the  w  rk  of  erudite  poets.  Now,  in  the  system 
of  Strauss,  you  will  have  remarked  with  astonish- 
ment, it  is  the  Old  Testarhent,  that  is  to  say,  a 
book,  which  furnishes  the  type  according  to  which 
the  people  is  supposed  to  have  composed  the  hfe  of 
Christ. 

However,  for  purposes  of  discussion,  let  us  use 
the  critic's  terms,  and  let  us  see  what  ia,  to  be 
thought  of  his  system. 

The  efflorescence  of  popular  legend  around  the 
great  personages  of  history,  is  a  recognized  fact. 
Nor  did  this  take  place  only  in  prehistoric  times, 
when  writing,  a  n3cessary  instrument  of  history, 
was  little  used.  Littre,  in  defense  of  Strauss,  has 
chosen  an  example  from  a  period  which  is  historic, 
those  early  Middle  Ages  which  he  kn3w  so  welL 
He  says  :  '•'  The  great  emperor  of  the  West,  Char- 
lemagne, had  hardly  disappeared  from  the  world 
which  he  had  captivated  by  his  wars,  by  his  victo- 


178  THE    MEA]NING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

ries,  by  his  power,  by  his  conflict  with  infidels, 
when  the  warlike  and  Christian  spirit  of  the  ages 
which  followed,  little  preoccupied  about  real  facts, 
wove  a  marvelous  legend  about  his  name.  All 
was  transfigured  under  this  poetic  elaboration;  as 
the  accurate  accounts  of  contemporary  chronicles 
had  little  circulation  in  the  troubled  times  which 
witnessed  the  disappearance  of  the  second  race  and 
the  rise  of  third,  the  fabulous  chronicles  were 
dovetailed  with  serious  narratives,  and  if  the  real 
documents  had  been  destroyed  by  any  accident  we 
should  know  nothing  more  certain  about  Charle- 
magne than  we  know  about  the  siege  of  Troy,  about 
Agamennon,  Achilles,  or  Hector.  "  ^  This  last 
statement  is  exaggerated;  but  we  may  accept  the 
comparison.  Charlemagne  is  a  king,  made  illus- 
trious by  wars.  Contemporary  narratives  tell  his 
true  story;  then  legend  is  added  to,  and  even 
mingled  with,  reliable  history.  The  same  is  said  to 
be  true  of  Napoleon,  though  in  our  day  legend  has 
less  chance  of  getting  into  serious  narratives.  Now 
apply  this  to  Jesus.  If  the  contemporary  accounts 
had  dissappeared,  and  we  had  to  depend  upon  the 
apocryphal  gospels  and  upon  certain  legends  pre- 
served in  the  Orient,  even  in  certain  writers  of 
Islam,  we  would  be  very  much  embarrassed  to  get 
at  a  knowledge  of  His  person  and  His  history. 
True !  But  as  a  matter  of  fact  we  have  contem- 
porary accounts,  and  they  are  the  Gospels.  And 
notice  the  astonishing  distraction  of  Littre. 
A  young  Israelite,  who  had  wrought  no  miracle, 

1.   Vie  de  Jesus,  Translator's  preface,  p.  xix. 


STRAUSS    AND    THE    MYTHOLOGICAL  179 


who  taught  a  doctrine  which  was  in  contradiction 
with  that  of  the  leaders  of  his  people,  and  who  was 
by  them  put  to  death,  —  this  very  small  personage 
is  compared  with  an  emperor  of  the  stature  of 
Charlemagne.  Is  it  the  legend  that  made  Char- 
lemagne emperor?  He  had  the  throne,  power, 
glory.  (Though  he  w^as  not  given  divine  rankl). 
Is  it  just  to  assimilate  the  contemporary  narratives 
of  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus  with  the  popular  and 
poetic  legends  which  were  engrafted  upon  the 
immense  glory  of  Charlemagne  more  than  a  century 
after  his  death?  One  lends  only  to  the  rich,  says 
the  proverb.  Without  the  miracles,  Jesus  was 
nothing.  The  comparison  with  Charlemagne  pleas- 
es you;  it  is  indeed,  enhghtening;  it  presup- 
poses the  profound  impression  produced  by  Him 
whose  faded  existence  alone  survives  in  the  Life  of 
Strauss. 

We  ask  the  mythological  school  :  "  If  Jesus 
wrought  no  miracles  and  did  not  rise  from  the  dead, 
how  did  he  come  to  be  recognized  as  the  Messias? 
If  He  was  not  recognized  as  the  Messias,  whence 
came  the  idea  of  attributing  to  Him  the  Old 
Testament  predictions  concerning  the  Messias?  " 

Strauss  foresaw  the  objection  and  tried  to  meet 
it.  You  will  judge  of  his  success.  He  puts  one 
argument  very  distinctly  :  "  The  Greek  and  Roman 
mythologies  are  the  product  of  a  collection  of  unau- 
thenticated  legends,  whilst  the  Bible  history  was 
written  by  eye-witnesses,  or  by  those  whose  con- 
nexion with  eye-witnesses  afforded  them  opportu- 
nities of  ascertaining  the  truth,  and  whose  integrity 
is  too  apparent  to  admit  of  a  doubt  as  to  the  sincer- 


180  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

ity  of  their  intentions.  "  This  is  his  answer  :  "  It 
would  almost  unquestionably  be  an  argument  of 
decisive  weight  in  favor  of  the  credibility  of 
bibhcal  history,  could  it  indeed  be  shown  that  it 
was  written  by  eye-witnesses,  or  even  by  persons 
nearly  contemporaneous  with  the  events  nar- 
rated. "  ^  He  is  confusing  matters  with  his 
"  biblical  history.  "  For  it  is  clear  enough  that  a 
number  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
written  long  after  the  events  narrated ;  but  it  is,  f6r 
the  moment,  question  of  the  Gospels.  Strauss  was 
prudent  enough  not  to  assign  them  a  precise  date. 
But  it  is  necessary  for  his  thesis,  and  he  clearly 
adopts  the  view,  that  they  arose  considerably  later 
than  the  end  of  the  first  century.  Now  contem- 
porary criticism  confesses  that  on  this  point  the 
arguments  of  Strauss  are  null  and  void. 

He  said,  in  particular  :  "  Our  second  Gospel 
cannot  have  originated  from  recollections  of  Peter's 
instructions,  that  is,  from  a  source  peculiar  to  itself, 
sine 3  it  is  evidently  a  compilation,  whether  made 
from  memory  or  otherwise,  from  the  first  and  third 
Gospels.  "  2  What  critic  would  to-day  subscribe 
to  that  proposition?  The  second  Gospel  composed 
according  to  the  third  !  The  contention  was  estab- 
lished by  the  same  kind  of  arguments  as  those 
which  support  the  rest  of  the  system  of  Strauss. 
As  for  the  third  Gospel,  Strauss  does  not  refuse 
absolutely  to  attribute  it  to  Luke,  the  companion 
of  Paul,  but  "  it  is  possible  that  the  companion  of 


1.  Lije  of  Jesus,  p.  69. 

2.  L.  L,  p.  71. 


STRAUSS    AND    THE    MYTHOLOGICAL  181 

Paul  may  have  composed  his  two  works  at  a  time, 
and  under  circumstances,  when  he  was  no  longer 
protected  by  the  Apostolic  influence  against  the 
tide  of  tradition.  "  ^  But  did  not  Luke  protest 
beforehand  against  such  an  inconsiderate  objection, 
in  his  prologue  of  the  third  Gospel,  which  is  written 
in  accordance  with  the  best  traditions  of  Greek 
historians  and  men  of  letters?  Moreover  it  is  not 
merely  possible,  it  is  certain,  as  Professor  Harnack 
has  recently  proved  anew  on  purely  literary 
grounds,  that  it  was  one  and  the  same  author 
who  wrote  the  Gospel  and  described  the  events  of 
the  Acts  in  which  he  had  himself  taken  part. 

Strauss  could  not  foresee  the  results  of  a  critical 
examination  of  the  texts,  which  he  himself  did  not 
even  attempt.  But  he  was  wrong  in  constructing 
his  system  upon  a  too  easy  distrust  of  the  docu- 
ments. And  he  should  not  have  attributed  to  the 
multitude  in  the  primitive  Church  the  basis  of  the 
teaching  on  the  person  of  Christ.  According  to 
what  we  know  from  the  documents,  —  and  it  is 
in  the  natural  course  of  things,  —  there  were  from 
the  beginning  teachers  and  taught.  It  would  be 
inverting  the  rdles  to  imagine  a  mysterious  elucu- 
bration  of  dogmas,  imposed  under  the  form  of  his- 
tory upon  the  Evangelists,  who  wrote  in  order  to 
preserve  the  primitive  catechesis.  It  is  the 
Apostles  who  preached  Jesus  Christ.  Very  shortly 
after  His  death,  He  already  lived  in  their  souls, 
surrounded  with  the  halo  of  a  miracle-worker  and  of 
one  risen  from  the  dead,  manifested  as  Son  of  God ; 

i.  L.  I.,  p.  72. 


182  THE    MEANI^^G    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

not  even  a  few  months  may  be  found  for  the  elabo- 
ration of  His  miraculous  life  by  the  Christian  people. 
The  part  of  the  people,  if  there  was  any,  was  con- 
fined to  the  arabesques  of  folk-lore,  consigned  to 
apocryphal  gospels,  but  rejected  by  the  authorities. 

To  diminish  the  difficulty  of  this  rapid  impro- 
visation, Strauss  has  recourse  to  an  image  of  the 
Christ  formed  beforehand  in  the  imagination  of  the 
Jewish  people.  The  disciples  would  have  applied 
to  Jesus  an  ideal  already  traced.  Miracles  had  to 
be  attributed  to  Jesus,  since  the  Messias  was  to 
perform  miracles  !  Answer  :  Let  us  admit,  as  the 
argument  assumes,  that  the  Messias  was  to  work 
miracles;  the  people,  then,  would  not  have  recog- 
nized Jesus  as  the  Messias  without  miracles.  The 
lowly  son  of  the  carpenter  did  not  pander  to  nation- 
al hope  as  Strauss,  be  it  said  to  his  credit,  has. 
recognized.  His  external  role  ^  had  absolutely 
nothing  about  it  which  marked  it  as  messianic. 
How  could  He  be  taken  for  the  Messias,  if  nothing 
in  his  works  designated  Him  in  another  way  as 
sent  by  God?  Here  is  the  concession  of  Strauss  : 
"  The  following  critique  on  the  Life  of  Jesus  does 
not  divest  it  of  all  those  features  to  which  the 
character  of  miraculous  has  been  appropriated.  "  ^ 

Really?  Are  we,  then,  to  fall  back  into  the  con- 
fusion of  the  RationaKsts  ?  Not  altogether.  Strauss 
only  goes  so  far  as  to  insinuate  that  there  may  have 
been  some  magnetic  influence  which  might  give 
rise  to  the  illusion  of  miracles  performed.  The 
magnetic  influence  could  be  effective  only  in  the 

1.  L.  I.,  p.  85. 


STRAUSS    AND    THE    MYTHOLOGICAL  183 

case  of  nervous  diseases;  Strauss  distrusted  the 
ointments  and  pastes  which  had  been  called  into 
service  by  Venturini  and  Paulus.  Together  with 
the  "  overwhelming  impression  which  was  made  on 
those  around  Him  by  the  personal  character  and 
discourses  of  Jesus,  "  in  an  order  of  things  which 
pertained  to  a  rabbi  rather  than  to  the  Messias, 
this  (possible)  magnetic  influence  must  suffice  to 
account  for  the  identification  of  Jesus  with  the 
Messias.  Such  influences  must  suffice,  even  in  the 
case  of  the  meek  teacher  who  was  condemned  to 
death  by  the  priests  and  the  doctors  of  the  Law ! 

But  there  is  the  Resurrection  I  Though  Strauss 
does  not  believe  in  the  Resurrection,  he  thinks  it 
may  have  helped  to  transform  the  humble  preacher 
of  Nazareth  into  the  Jewish  Messias  :  "  After  his 
death  the  belief  in  his  resurrection,  however  that 
belief  may  have  arisen,  afforded  a  more  than  suffi- 
cient proof  of  his  Messiahship ;  so  that  all  the  other 
miracles  in  his  history  need  not  be  considered  as 
the  foundation  of  the  faith  in  this,  but  may  rather 
be  adduced  as  the  consequence  of  it.  "  ^  That 
belief  in  the  Resurrection  implied  belief  in  the 
Messias  may  be  readily  granted.  But  a  belief  of 
whatever  derivation!  One  might  possibly  cout 
ceive  of  its  arising  from  the  conviction  that  Jesus 
was  the  Messias,  though  this  conviction  would  not 
adequately  account  for  it.  No  other  conceivable 
derivation  can  be  found,  if  we  refuse  to  beheve  that 
He  did  rise.  And  Strauss  recognizes  this.  He 
rejects,  as  too  clearly  opposed  to  the  texts,  the 

1.  L,L,  p.  85. 


184  THE    MEANING   OF    CHRISTIANITY 

Rationalist  system  which  makes  Jesus  survive  the 
Crucifixion.  He  will  hear  of  no  external  appari- 
tion. But,  he  explains,  Jesus  "  had  constantly 
impressed  them  (His  disciples)  more  and  more 
decidedly  with  the  belief  that  He  was  the  MeBsias ; 
but  his  death,  which  they  were  unable  to  reconcile 
with  the  messianic  ideas,  had  for  the  moment  anni- 
hilated this  behef.  Now  when,  after  the  first 
shock  was  past,  the  earlier  impression  began  to 
revive,  there  spontaneously  arose  in  them  the 
psychological  necessity  of  solving  the  contradiction 
between  the  ultimate  fate  of  Jesus  and  their  earlier 
opinion  of  Him  —  of  adapting  into  their  idea  of 
the  Messiah  the  characteristics  of  suffering  and 
death. "  ^  In  this  embarrassment,  they  had  recourse 
to  books,  and  then,  "  foreign  as  the  idea  of  such  a 
Messiah  is  to  the  Old  Testament,  the  disciples, 
who  wished  to  find  it  there,  must  nevertheless  have 
regarded  as  intimations  of  this  kind,  all  those 
poetical  and  prophetical  passages  which,  like 
Isaias  LIII,  Psalm  XXII,  represented  the  man 
of  God  as  afflicted  and  borne  down  even  to 
death.  "  "  Henceforth  they  represented  to  them- 
selves Jesus  entered  into  His  glory,  His  messianic 
glory.  In  these  Gahlean  fishermen,  who  w^ere  so 
clever  at  discovering  Bible  references,  and  still  more 
in  the  women  who  were  with  them, "  these  impres- 
sions were  heightened,  in  a  purely  subjective  man- 
ner, into  actual  vision  ";  then  there  broke  upon 
them  the  full  meaning  of  the  text  of  Psalm  XVI, 


1.  L.  L,  p.  742. 

2.  Ihid, 


STRAUSS    AND    THE    MYTHOLOGICAL  185 

Thou  wilt  not  leai^  my  soul  in  hell,  neither  wilt  thou 
suffer  thy  holy  one  to  see  corruption,  and  they 
inferred  that  Jesus  had  come  forth  from  the  tomb. 
At  Jerusalem  itself  the  contrary  could  have  been 
easily  proved,  there  "  the  body  lay  in  the  grave  to 
contradict  bold  suppositions  " ;  but  Matthew  (who 
.  here  becomes  alone  worthy  of  faith)  is  said  to  have 
only  one  apparition,  in  Galilee,  not  to  admit  like 
Luke  and  John  apparitions  in  the  Holy  City,  and 
to  be  silent  about  the  discovery  of  the  empty  tomb. 

With  time  (for  here  again  Strauss  requires  time, 
and  he  makes  it  stretch  to  long  after  Pentecost) 
belief  in  the  Resurrection  took  root.  For  this 
capital  dogma  the  Apostles  are  responsible.  Theirs 
the  honor  of  the  myth.  Popular  traditio..  is  here 
assign3d  no  part. 

Now,  frankly,  this  reasoning  is  not  serious.  The 
baseless  conviction  that  Jesus  is  the  Messias  is  made 
the  basis  of  faith  in  the  Resurrection,  and  the 
Resurrection  confirms  faith  in  His  Messiahship. 
The  Apostles'  illusion  serves,  in  turn,  as  a  foun- 
dation for  the  faith  of  the  community,  and  the 
faith  of  the  community  dictates  history.  Strauss 
imagined  the  origin  of  Christianity  as  a  professor 
of  exegesis  might  have  figured  it  out  according  to 
the  Old  Testament.  Such  organizations  have  not 
even  the  hfe  of  a  popular  illusion.  And  not  only  is 
his  organization  artificial,  it  did  not  take  into 
account  all  the  elements  of  the  problem. 

Strauss  failed  to  consult  all  the  texts  which  can 
beet  instruct  us  concerning  the  messianic  concep- 
tions of  the  time.  He  constantly  refers  to  the  Old 
Testament,  as  if  it  had  furnished  the  features  of  a 


186  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

figure  known  to  all.  At  times  he  has  recourse  to  the 
rabbinic  commentaries,  in  which  one  finds  the  ra- 
rified  atmosphere  of  the  school,  with  its  ingenious 
combinations ;  but  these,  not  to  speak  of  their  late 
composition,  can  give  no  living  idea  of  the  Messias. 
Nowadays,  we  have  a  better  knowledge  of  other 
works,  earlier  and  later  than  the  time  of  Christ,  — 
apocalypses  of  various  kinds,  Psalms  of  Solomon, 
Assumption  of  Moses,  —  containing  an  erroneous^ 
but  contemporary,  interpretation  of  the  hopes 
veiled  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  not  easy  to 
disengage  from  them  the  figure  of  the  Messias.  ^ 
Every  one  formed  his  own  concept  of  him.  But  if 
He  is  now  of  heavenly  origin,  now  son  of  David,  He 
is  always  the  Savior  of  Israel.  It  is  astonishing  for 
us,  but  it  is  a  fact,  that  no  one  attributes  to  him 
those  miracles  of  beneficence  ^  which  are  bound  up 
with  our  memories  of  the  person  of  the  Christ.  The 
action  of  the  Messias,  brilhant  and  dominating,  is 
manifested  in  the  acts  of  a  leader,  a  judge,  a  con- 
queror, a  king,  and  in  the  interest  of  the  nation. 
Imbued  with  such  conceptions,  the  contemporaries 
of  Jesus  could  not  have  recognized  Him  as  the 
Messias,  had  He  not  furnished  other  proofs  that 
God  had  sent  Him.  After  having  acknowledged 
Him,  if  they  had  freely  followed  the  impulsion  of 

1.  One  may  consult  on  this  point  the  work  of  the  present 
author,  Le  Messianisme  chez  les  Juijs,  Paris,  1909. 

2,  Strauss  cites  Isaias  xxxv,  5,  Then  shall  the  eyes  of  the 
blind  he  opened,  and  the  ears  of  the  deaf  shall  he  unstopped; 
then  shall  the  lame  man  leap  as  a  hart.  The*  Jews  did  not 
understand  it  of  the  Messias,  for  Isaias  here  speaks  of  th»  ac- 
tion of  God.  It  is  as  Son  of  God  that  Our  Lord  could  in  all 
justice  allude  to  it.  {Mt.  XI,  5;  Lk.  VII,  22.) 


STRAUSS    AND    THE    MYTHOLOGICAL  187 

their  anterior  messianic  dreams,  the  Christians 
would  have  drawn  on  these  anticipations  to  com- 
pose the  hfe  of  the  Messias.  Legend,  when  free  to 
spread  its  wings,  does  not  dispense  with  such 
materials.  The  Gospel  does  not  draw  therefrom. 
Tradition  kept  the  miracles;  it  introduced  into  the 
history  of  Jesus  which  it  transmitted  no  feature  of 
the  conquering  Messias.  Such  features  are  found 
only  in  the  Apocalypse,  and  there  they  are  reserved 
for  the  future.  Even  folk-lore,  ^  when  it  applied 
itself  to  the  Gospels,  neglected  the  national  cha- 
racter of  the  Jewish  Messias. 

Moreover,  the  procedure  which  Strauss  ascribes  to 
tradition  is  contrary  to  the  popular  genius.  Take 
the  miracle  of  the  multiphcation  of  the  loaves.  ^ 
We  should  indeed  be  deeply  grateful  to  the  Ration- 
aUstic  explanation,  says  Strauss,  if  it  were  true 
that  it  could  free  us  from  the  burden  of  so  unheard- 
of  a  miracle.  But  the  text  resists;  it  retains  its 
miracle.  On  the  other  hand,  the  four  Evangelists 
have  a  narrative  of  a  multiphcation.  Method 
requires  that  attention  be  called  to  their  diver- 
gencies. According  to  the  synoptists  the  scene  of 
the  event  is  a  desert  place;  according  to  St.  John,  a 
mountain.  This  difficulty,  and  others  of  the  kind, 
do  not  seem  insoluble;  and  they  are  not  pressed. 
But  how  many  causes,  he  says,  may  have  concurred 
to  form  this  narrative  !  Moses  nourished  the  Isra- 
elites with  manna  (Ex.  XVI)  and  even  added  quail 


1.  Cf.  FiLLiON,  Le  folklore  et  les  fvangiles,  in  the  Revise 
du  Cierge  frangais,  Jan.  15,  1918. 

2.  Op.  L,  p.  516,  f. 


188  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

thereto  (Ex.  XVI,  13).     Elias  multiplied  the  little 
provision  of  oil  and  flour  possessed  by  the  widow  of 
Sarepta  (3  Kings  XVII,  8-16).     Eliseus  nourished 
a  hundred  men  with  twenty  barley-loaves  (4  Kings 
IV,  42  f!).     And  what  appears  to  Strauss  most 
significant,    decisive   (he   has   this   word),   is   the 
resemblance  tf  details.     Doubts  are  expressed  at 
Sinai  and  in  Galilee.     (They  usually  are  in  narra- 
tives (.f  miracles).     In  the  case  of  Eliseus  as  in  the 
case  of  Jesus  the  bread  is  of  barley.     (The  usual 
bread  of  Palestine).     Consequently,  the  miracles  of 
Jesus  must  have  been  modeled  on  the  miracles  of 
the   Old  Testament,   by  that  mysterious   entity, 
popular  tradition !     Not  only  is  this  popular  tra- 
dition   erudite,    it    feeds    on   rational    categories. 
When  occupied  with  the  creation  of  the  wedding- 
feast  of  Cana,  according  to  the  memory  of  the  water 
sweetened  by  Moses  or  of  the  Nile  changed  into 
blood,  it  reflects  that  a  change  of  substance  would 
well  become  the  Messias,  but  that  His  goodness 
would  not  allow  of  a  change  into  blood  :  "  If,  on 
the  one  hand,  a  change  of  water  for  the  worse,  like 
that  Mosaic  transmutation  into  blood,  if  a  miracle 
of  this  retributive  kind  might  not  seem  well  suited 
to  the  mild  spirit  of  the  Messiah  as  recognized  in 
Jesus  :  so  on  the  other  hand,  such  a  change  for  the 
better  as,  like  the  removal  of  bitterness  or  noxious- 
ness, did  not  go  beyond  the  species  of  water,  and 
did  not,  like  the  change  into  blood,  alter  the  subs- 
tance of  the  water  itself,  might  appear  sufficient 
for  the  Messiah;  if  then  the  two   conditions  be 
united,  a  change  of  water  for  the  better,  which 
should  at  the  same  time  be  a  specific  alteration  of 


STRAUSS    AND    THE    MYTHOLOGICAL  18^ 

the  substance,  must  almost  of  a  necessity  be  a 
change  into  wine.  ^  "  This  recipe  for  the  easy 
production  of  legendary  miracles  may  be  recom- 
mended to  philologists,  in  their  Studierstuhe,  hav- 
ing at  their  disposal  a  library  (only  fairly  well 
supplied),  a  mug  of  beer,  and  a  good  pipe,  to  favor 
the  hatching  of  oriental  images.  O  lake  of  Tiberias, 
sunlit  hills,  naive  and  enthusiastic  fishermen  and 
peasants !...  The  Galilean  idyl  of  Renan  did  not 
cost  him  much  more  than  these  learned  combin- 
ations of  Strauss,  but  at  least  he  took  the  trouble 
to  go  and  see  for  himself,  and  he  did  breathe  the 
perfumes  of  the  oleanders  on  the  river  banks. 

But  here  is  a  last  trait  of  German  pedantry  which 
cannot  be  said  to  denote  much  candor.  Radical 
as  his  work  is,  Strauss  presented  it  to  the  public 
as  a  means  of  putting  religion  upon  a  more  sohd 
foundation,  and,  not  without  equivocation,  he 
insinuated  in  his  preface  that  this  foundation  was 
still  Christian  :  '"'  The  author  is  aware  that  the  es- 
sence of  the  Christian  faith  is  independent  of  his 
criticism.  The  supernatural  birth  of  Christ,  his 
miracles,  his  resurrection  and  ascension,  remain 
eternal  truths,  whatever  doubts  may  be  cast  on 
their  reality  as  historical  facts.  The  certainty  of 
this  can  alone  give  calmness  and  dignity  to  our 
criticism.  "  ^  Peruse,  then,  gentle  reader,  these 
two  bulky  volumes  which  demoUsh  the  reality  of 
things;  assimilate  their  teaching  trustfully.  The 
inner  essence  of  the  Gospel  will  still  be  yours  at  the 

1.  Op.  L,  p.  526. 

2.  Op.  L,  p.  XXX. 


190  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

end  of  your  study,  for  all  will  then  be  explained 
according  to  the  philosophy  of  Hegel  :  "  In  an 
individual,  a  God-man,  the  properties  and  functions 
which  the  church  ascribes  to  Christ  contradict 
themselves;  in  the  idea  of  the  race  they  perfectly 
agree.  Humanity  is  the  union  of  two  natures  — 
God  becomes  man,  the  infinite  manifesting  itself  in 
the  finite,  and  the  finite  spirit  remembering  its 
infinitude ;  it  is  the  child  of  the  visible  Mother  and 
the  invisible  Father,  Nature  and  Spirit;  it  is  the 
worker  of  miracles,  ir  so  far  as  in  the  course  of 
human  history  the  spirit  more  and  more  completely 
subjugates  nature,  both  within  and  around  mar, 
until  it  lies  before  him  as  the  inert  matter  on  which 
he  exercises  his  active  power;  it  is  the  sinless 
existence,  for  the  course  of  its  development  is  a 
blameless  one,  pollution  clings  to  the  individual 
only,  and  does  not  touch  the  race  or  its  history.  It 
is  Humanity  that  dies,  rises,  and  ascends  to  heaven, 
for  from  the  negations  of  its  phenomenal  life  there 
ever  proceeds  a  higher  spiritual  hfe;  from  the  sup- 
pression of  its  mortality  as  a  personal,  national  and 
terrestrial  spirit,  arises  its  union  with  the  infinite 
spirit  of  the  heavens.  By  faith  in  this  Christ,  espe- 
cially in  his  death  and  resurrection,  man  is  justified 
before  God...  "  ^  The  Lutheran  cadence  is  pretty. 
Who  can  tell  by  what  secret  presentiment,  or  by 
what  unHkely  stroke  of  fortune,  popular  tradition 
so  traced  the  portrait  of  its  Christ  that  it  represents 
the  humanity  of  Hegel,  the  only  Man-God.  And 
what  becomes  of  the  Christ  of  history,  despoiled 

1.  Op.  I.,  p.  780. 


\ 


STRAUSS    AND    THE    MYTHOLOGICAL  191 

of  His  divine  attributes?  He  profits,  indeed,  by 
distance  and  vagueness;  He  is  relieved  of  the 
odious  vulgarity  of  the  Christ  of  Rationalism;  but 
the  real  object  of  worship  can  only  be  humanity. 

This  is  what  was  understood  by  Littr6,  the 
translator  of  Strauss,  and  never  was  more  apparent 
the  distinction  between  the  two  kinds  of  mind. 
The  Frenchman  accepts  wilhngly  the  negations  of 
the  critic.  He  balks  at  the  parody  of  Christian 
restoration.  The  result  of  "  the  vigorous  German 
philosophy,  the  last  effort  of  the  metaphysical 
spirit  "  appears  to  him  a  "  tree  without  roots,  " 
"  an  edifice  without  foundation.  "  ^ 

The  humanity  Littre  knows  is  not  the  Man-God 
of  Hegel,  it  is  that  of  everybody.  ^  And  is  it  not 
remarkable  that  a  great  contemporary  French 
exegete,  after  having  completely  explored  German 
exegesis,  should  have  stopped  like  Littre  at  the 
religion  of  pure  humanity? 

In  Germany,  the  Hegelian  interpretation  of  the 
Gospel  even  took  on  verse-form.  I  think  I  re- 
cognize the  influence  of  Strauss  in  Sallet's  '"  Lay- 
man's Gospel,  "  pubhshed  in  1842.  The  program 
is  the  same,  and  carried  out  with  more  rigor.  First 
the  evangehcal  episode,  then  the  Hegehan  meaning. 
After  the  narrative  of  the  Annunciation,  the  natural 
meaning  is  thus  criticized  :  "  So  speaks  the  legend  in 
its  deep,  mysterious  language.  If  I  am  forced  to 
take  it  hterally,  it  changes  into  a  laughable  fable 
which  has  no  meaning,  and  that  living  spirit  which      -«♦ 

1.  Preface,  pp.  xxii  ff. 

2.  Preface,  p,  xxv. 

13 


192  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

it  contains  is  destroyed.  "  But  all  becomes  great 
and  noble  if  one  but  rise  to  the  thought  of  the 
incarnation  of  God  which  is  ever  taking  place  in  the 
conscience  of  humanity.  "  0  woman !  cries  the 
poet,  what  thou  bearest  is  holy  and  will  become 
great  in  spirit.  It  is  the  eternal  king,  the  master 
of  the  earth.  There  is  no  day  in  which  God,  to 
become  man,  does  not  come  down  into  thy  womb. 
Thus,  new  mother  of  Jesus,  thou  humbly  receivest 
God  in  the  heavenly  purity  of  thy  soul.  Thou 
makest  a  paradise  tf  this  terrestrial  valley  and 
thy  children  shall  be  called  sons  of  God.  " 

"  What  is  most  extraordinary,  "  notes,  the 
excellent  Mr.  Heinricji,  "  is  that  a  great  part  of 
these  verses  were  destined  to  convert  Sallet's 
betrothed  to  Hegelianism  ^...  "  His  conviction 
was  strong. 

Protestant  Germany  made  no  mistake  about  the 
destructive  character  of  Strauss'  work.  "  When  it 
was  seen,  "  says  Edgar  Quinet,  "  that  it  was  hke 
a  mathematical  consequence  of  all  the  works 
accomphshed  beyond  the  Rhine  for  fifty  years  and 
that  each  scholar  had  brought  a  stone  to  this  sorry 
sepulchre,  learned  Germany  was  startled  and 
recoiled  before  its  product.  "  ^  It  was  indeed  its 
own  work,  despite  the  original  character  of  the 
mythological  interpretation,  since  it  joined  in  the 
negation  of  the  supernatural  inaugurated  by  Ration- 
ahsm.  And  if  learned  Germany  recoiled,  it  was 
only  in  order  to  render  this  negation  more  accep- 


1,  Heinrich,  Hist,  de  la  litt.  all.,  t.  Ill,  p.  385. 

2,  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  Dec.  1838. 


STRAUSS    AND     THE    MYTHOLOGICAL  193 

• 

table,  by  clothing  it  with  new  formulas.  You  have 
heard  ft  said  that  the  work  of  Strauss  was  purely 
negative  and  that  it  "  gave  way  under  its  own  no- 
thingness. "1  Its  effect  was,  notwithstanding,  very 
great.  After  Strauss,  the  critical  schools  did  not 
even  put  themselves  to  the  trouble  of  discussing  the 
Divine  titles  of  Christianity.  Once  the  Rationahst 
explanation  was  put  aside,  it  was  understood  that 
scientific  history  does  not  take  miraculous  events 
into  consideration,  either  to  deny  them  or  to  explain 
them.  This  does  not  mean  that  the  question  of 
the  miracles  is  solved.  If  it  is  not  taken  up  frank- 
ly, it  is  because  it  is  realized  that  all  the  systems 
proposed  have  been  found  insufficient.  They  are 
utihzed  for  want  of  something  better.  People 
continue  to  borrow  some  traits  from  Pauius;  they 
recur  more  willingly  to  the  myth,  either  the  spon- 
taneous myth  or  that  derived  from  a  reminiscence 
of  the  Old  Testament;  as  a  last  expedient  they 
take  refuge  in  the  unknowable.  This  determined 
attitude  of  criticism  is  largely  due  to  the  influence 
of  Strauss  .  "  2 

Nevertheless,  this  same  criticism  reproaches 
Strauss  with  having  gone  too  far  and  too  systemat- 
ically in  the  mythological  interpretation.  His 
sketch  of  the  life  of  Jesus  has  some  true  features, 
though  it  was  very  far  from  complete.  His  n*  ga- 
tion  of  the  early  age  of  the  Gospels  rested  on  nothing 


i.  ViGouRoux,  op.  I.,  t.  Ill,  p.  545. 

2.  In  his  work  on  "  Jesus  and  the  evangelical  tradition  " 
(1910)  M.  Loisy  does  hardly  anything  but  apply  to  the 
events  of  the  second  Gospel  the  principles  of  Strauss;  of. 
Revue  Biblique,  1911,  p.  294,  fT. 


194  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

solid.  He  had  said  nothing  of  the  beginnings  of 
the  Church,  n^or  of  the  composition  of  the  writings 
of  the  New  Testament.  All  these  points  were  the 
object  of  a  feverish  activity,  even  during  the  life- 
time of  Strauss,  and  conclusions  were  generally 
more  moderate  than  those  of  his  first  Life  of  Christ. 
He  himself,  in  his  second  Life,  is  nearer  to  the 
position  of  the  school  of  compromise  than  to  his 
first  position.  This  new  phase  of  criticism  begins 
with  Baur  and  the  Tubingen  school. 


SIXTH  LECTURE 

THE  TUBINGEN  SCHOOL  ON  THE  ORIGINS 
OF  CHRISTIANITY 


Ferdinand  Christian  Baur,  the  uncontested  leader 
of  the  Tubingen  school,  was  born  at  Schmiden  near 
Canstadt,  in  1792.  He  died  at  Tubingen  in  1860.  He 
was,  as  we  have  abeady  said,  a  teacher  of  Strauss, 
and  assuredly  he  had,  as  he  has  affirmed,  traced  in 
his  own  mind  the  main  hnes  of  his  system  before 
Strauss  wrote.  Nevertheless,  his  works  and  those 
of  his  school  present  themselves  as  a  complement 
of  the  work  of  Strauss ;  and  his  principal  work  on 
"  Paul  the  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ  "  ^  appeared 
only  in  1845,  ten  years  after  his  pupil  had  pubhshed 
his  Life  of  Jesus.  The  doubts  Strauss  had  raised 
about  the  authenticity  of  the  Gospels,  the  creative 
part  he  had  assigned  to  popular  tradition,  that  is  to 
say,  to  the  early  Christian  community,  in  the  rise 
of  the  Gospel  narratives  and  of  Christian  dogma, 
his  destructive  criticism  of  history  and  his  tendency 
boldly  to  replace  history  by  myth,  all  conspired  to 
transfer  the  interest  formerly  concentrated  upon 
the  hfe  of  Christ  to  a  wider  study  of  the  origins  of 
Christianity.  If  the  hfe  of  Christ  was  in  great  part 
an  invention  of  Apostohc  times,  to  what  unknown 

1.  Paulus  der  Apostel  Jesu  Christi,  Stuttgart,  1845, 
Second  ed.  published  by  Zeller,  Leipzig,  1866. 


196  THE     MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

forces  of  these  times  had  Christianity  owed  its 
existence,  or  what  idea  had  given  such  an  impetus 
to  the  production  of  myths,  the  purpose  of  which 
was  to  teach  Christianity? 

If  this  question  could  be  answered,  there  would 
have  been  acquired  at  the  same  time  a  criterion,  a 
rule,  by  which  to  judge  of  the  age  of  the  writings 
of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  in  the  pursuit  of  this 
twofold  aim  that  the  Tubingen  school  showed  a 
truly  prodigious  activity.  It  proposed  to  determine 
at  the  same  time  the  principle  of  the  Christian 
evolution,  and  to  fix  the  dates  of  the  writings  which 
manifest  its  various  phases.  The  school  took  its 
stand,  then,  on  the  positions  of  Strauss,  or  rather 
it  tried  to  fill  the  void  which  he  had  dug;  this  is  so 
true  that  Baur  never  attempted  to  trace  the  portrait 
of  Christ.  He  admitted,  without  any  special 
study,  that  Jesus  had  presented  Himself  as  the 
Messias  expected  by  the  Jews.  But  he  asked  how 
did  men  come  to  adore  Jesus  as  Son  of  God,  how 
the  faith  of  the  Gentiles  came  to  join  itself  to  that 
of  the  Jews.  He  knew  enough  about  history  to 
marvel  at  such  a  union.  The  explanation,  he 
held,  must  be  sought  especially  in  the  writings 
of  St.  Paul,  letters  addressed  to  the  first  churches, 
which  reflect  their  preoccupations  as  well  as  the 
mind  of  the  Apostle.  This  was  the  means  to 
discern  the  tendencies  which  actuated  men,  and, 
in  accordance  with  these  tendencies,  to  estimate  the 
progress  of  ideas.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the 
criticism  of  Tiibingen  has  been  called  the  criticism 
of  tendencies.  It  is  itself  very  clearly  the  product 
of  a  tendency,  as  we  shall  see. 


THE    ORIGINS    OF    CHRISTIANITY  197 


Baur's  Reconstruction  of  Christian  Origins. 


Let  us  try  to  sketch  the  main  Hnes  of  Baur's 
system,  according  to  his  first  epoch-marking  work, 
on  the  Apostle  St.  Paul.  The  central  idea  seems  to 
be  the  opposition  between  the  earliest  Apostles, 
with  Peter  at  their  head,  and  Paul,  the  convert  of 
the  Damascus  road.  Peter,  who  represents  the 
early  Apostles,  has  recognized  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus.  His  faith,  for  a  moment  shaken  by  the 
death  of  the  Master,  is  confirmed  by  the  Resur- 
rection ;  but  it  has  not  changed  in  its  nature.  Jesus 
is  still  for  him  the  Messias  of  Israel,  the  one  who  is 
to  give  her  such  prosperity  and  glory  as  had  not 
been  heard  of  in  past  centuries.  His  death  was 
but  an  accident,  with  no  other  bearing  than  to 
delay  the  realization  of  the  national  hopes.  Jesus 
is  absent;  He  will  return  to  take  up  once  more  His 
interrupted  national  work.  The  second  coming 
will  make  up  for  what  was  lacking  in  the  first. 
Such  was  the  faith  of  the  Christians  if  Jewish 
birth,  of  what  Baur  calls  the  Petrine  party. 

The  genius  of  Paul  cannot  be  satisfied  v/ith  this 
explanation,  especially  with  this  insufficient  ac- 
count of  a  fact  so  extraordinary  as  the  death  of  the 
Messias.  He  thinks  it  must  have  had  immense 
value  in  the  eyes  of  God.  It  affects  nothiig  less 
than  the  reaUzation  of  the  Messias'  mission.  It 
transforms  the  Messiahship,  destroys  its  national 


198  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

character.  If  the  Christ  died,  it  is  for  no  less  a 
purpose  than  to  expiate  the  sins  of  the  world  and 
to  reconcile  men  with  God.  By  His  death,  Jesus 
died  to  Judaism,  ^  and  became  the  source  of  the 
life  of  the  spirit  for  all  men.  The  Divine  spirit- 
acting  in  men's  souls,  such  is  the  absolute  principle 
tf  religion  discovered  by  St.  Paul;  it  is  far  beyond 
the  concepts  of  Judaism.  The  spirit  strives  against 
the  flesh,  frees  the  soul,  enfranchises  it  from  the 
Jewish  Law,  and  unites  it  to  God. 

Paul  had  a  penetrating  mind.  Leaving  Phari- 
saism by  his  conversion,  he  went  at  a  leap  to  its 
very  antipodes;  he  was  the  first  fully  to  grasp  the 
meaning  of  Christianity,  and  logically  to  deduce  its 
secondary  principles. 

His  doctrine,  entirely  new,  was  to  come  into 
conflict  with  the  routine  of  hereditary  messianism, 
which  were  being  transmitted  in  the  Judeo-Christ- 
ian  communities,  that  is,  the  communities  com- 
posed of  Jewish  converts  which  continued  to  ob- 
serve the  Law  of  Moses. 

There  is  one  view  of  Baur  to  which  sufficient 
attention  is  not  always  given.  He  did  not  put 
Peter  among  the  most  resolute,  or,  we  might  say, 
the  most  obstinate,  Judaizers.  These  obstinate 
Judaizers  held  that  all  Christians,  whether  Jew 
or  Gentile  by  birth,  were  bound  to  be  circumcised 
if  they  would  be  saved,  and  they  exempted  no  one 
from  any  Jewish  observance.  The  Peter  of  Baur 
really  agreed  with  this  view;  but  he  and  the  other 
Apostles  showed  themselves  hesitating  in  regard  to 

1.  Cf.  II  Cor.  V,  16. 


THE    ORIGINS    OF    CHRISTIANITY  199 

the  application  of  the  Judaizing  principles.  With- 
out the  Law,  no  salvation.  But  Barnabas  and 
Paul  had  founded  Christian  communities  which 
were  little  disposed  to  submit  to  the  Law.  Must 
these  communities  be  regarded  as  altogether 
outside  the  Church?  It  would  be  to  deprive  the 
Church  of  the  success  of  a  ministry  which  seemed 
blessed  by  God.  An  effort  was  made  to  save 
the  principles  by  distinguishing  two  kinds  of 
apostolate,  without  for  this  reason  severing  the 
connections  of  brotherhood.  Paul  assumed  res- 
ponsibility for  his  preaching,  and  he  was  given 
liberty  to  do  so.  He  might  go  to  the  Gentiles  to 
form  them  in  his  own  way.  But  Peter  would  keep 
the  Jews.  Upon  this  understanding,  they  gave 
each  other  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  and  Paul 
was  invited  to  send,  as  a  sign  of  union,  the  alms 
of  the  Gentiles  to  the  poor  of  Jerusalem. 

But  the  conciliating  spirit  of  Peter  could  not 
lessen  the  antagonism  of  the  principles;  the  conflict 
was  renewed  and  continued  between  the  two  ten- 
dencies. The  quarrel  still  lasted,  more  bitter  than 
ever  on  the  Petrine  side,  when,  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  second  century,  there  were  composed 
the  works  known  as  the  Clementine  Homelies  and 
the  Recognitions  of  Peter.  Baur  held  that,  through 
faithfulness  to  the  memory  of  Peter  and  to  defend 
his  doctrine,  these  writings  attacked  Paul  in  a 
disguised  way  in  the  person  of  Simon  the  Magician, 
the  adversary  of  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  the 
type  of  the  heretic  and  the  charlatan.  When  pas- 
sions were  at  high  tension  on  both  sides,  a  third 
party,  threatening  to  the  partisans  of  Peter  and  to 


200  THE    MEANING    OF    CNRI^TIANITY 

those  of  Paul,  constrained  them  to  come  to  an  un- 
derstanding. Petrinists  and  Pauhnists  had  in  com- 
mon a  certain  number  of  principles  and,  moreover, 
a  sentiment  of  the  unity  which  arose  from  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ  and  from  the  practice  of  the  same  moral 
virtues.  There  now  arose  all  around  them  a  cloud 
of  adversaries,  the  Gnostics,  who  boasted  of  a  deep- 
er knowledge,  of  which  the  sources  were  unknown, 
and  menaced  the  simplicity  and  the  integrity  of 
Christian  faith  and  morals.  To  withstand  Gnosti- 
cism, the  Church  concentrated  its  forces,  the  old 
controversies  were  allowed  to  subside,  and  definite 
reconcihation  was  brought  about  by  means  of 
mutual  concessions.  Pauhnism  had  triumphed  in 
its  essential  contention  that  Christians  were  not 
bound  by  the  Law  of  Moses.  But  the  new  liberty 
was  limited  by  another  form  of  legahsm.  Christian- 
ity was,  according  to  Petrinism,  a  national  mes- 
sianism;  it  was^  according  to  Paulinism,  the  per- 
ception of  the  spirit,  transforming  messianism  into 
a  universal  religion  in  which  the  individual,  freed 
from  the  Law,  possesses  the  holy  liberty  of  the 
children  of  God.  Catholicism,  which  resulted  from 
the  compromise,  had  the  advantages  and  the 
disadvantages  of  an  agreement  which,  while  it 
proclaimed  the  abolition  of  the  law  of  Moses,  kept 
its  spirit  of  servitude,  mingled  with  the  spirit  of 
liberty.  It  was  reserved  for  Protestantism  to  restore 
freedom  and  thus  to  prepare  mankind  for  the  great 
Hegelian  discovery  of  the  religion  of  the  absolute. 
Having  thus  reconstructed  the  history  of  the 
primitive  Church  as  a  struggle  between  two  ten- 
dencies which  ended  in  a  conciliation,  Baur  found 


THE    ORIGINS    OF    CHRISTIANITY  201 

everywhere  indications  of  this  historical  drama. 
He  beheved  he  now  held  a  kind  of  chronological 
scale,  which  would  enable  him  to  date  the  writings 
of  the  New  Testament  according  to  the  phases  of 
Petrinism  or  Paulinism  which  they  reflected.  This 
scale  appeared  especially  reliable  in  the  case  of  the 
writings  of  St.  Paul,  the  author  of  a  perfectly  char- 
acterized doctrine.  Baur  found  the  Pauline  doc- 
trine in  its  purity  in  the  four  great  Epistles,  that  to 
the  Galatians,  that  to  the  Romans,  and  the  two 
to  the  Corinthians.  These  are  authentic.  At  the 
other  extremity  we  find  the  Pastoral  Epistles, 
contemporaneous  with  the  beginnings  of  Gnosti- 
cism, with  the  growth  of  those  myths  and  of  genea- 
logies against  which  Timothy  is  warned  ^.  Between 
these  two  clearly  marked  groups,  the  other  Epistles, 
ascribed  to  St.  Paul  by  antiquity  are  at  the  very 
least  doubtful,  and  more  likely  spurious;  they  are 
in  all  probability  manifestoes  of  the  Pauline  party 
reaching  out  for  an  accommodation. 

But  the  principal  contribution  to  the  adjustment, 
the  one  which  best  embodies  the  peace-making 
spirit,  is  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  The  Acts  are  as 
it  were  the  protocol,  drawn  up  in  the  form  of 
history,  of  the  compromise  between  the  disciples  of 
Peter  and  those  of  Paul;  they  repi'esent  the  leaders 
as  already  agreed  on  those  doctrines  and  lines  of 
conduct  which  were  now  settled  upon  by  their 
disciples.  Between  them  there  is  rivalry  only  in 
the  efforts  they  make  to  meet  each  other's  views. 
Peter,  taught  by  a  vision,  opens  the  doors  of  the 

1.  I  Tim.  X,  4. 


202  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

Church  to  the  Gentiles,  in  the  person  of  the  centur- 
ion Cornehus ;  he  declares  in  the  council  of  Jerusa- 
lem that  the  Gentiles  must  not  be  obhged  to  keep 
the  Law  of  Moses.  ^  He  is  almost  a  convinced 
Paulinist.  Paul,  on  his  side,  is  full  of  deference  for 
the  Law.  He  solemnizes  the  festivals,  visits  the 
Temple,  shuts  himself  up  therein  in  order  to  fulfil 
a  Nazarite  vow,  circumcises  Timothy,  the  son  of 
a  Greek  father.  ^  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  are, 
then,  to  judge  by  their  concihating  spirit,  later 
than  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 

Baur  and  his  friends  applied  their  rule  to  the 
Gospels  with  no  less  confidence.  Between  St.  Mat- 
thew and  St.  John,  there  is  as  great  divergency  as 
between  the  four  great  Pauline  Epistles  and  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles.  The  First  Gospel  breathes 
respect  for  the  Law;  it  proves  the  accomplishment 
of  the  messianic  prophecies  in  Jesus.  It  is  the 
manifesto  of  Petrinism.  The  Third  Gospel  leans 
toward  concihation,  though  representing  Ihe  Paul- 
ine conception.  The  Second,  ^vrit+..n  according 
to  the  First  and  the  Third,  unites  tha  t  vvo  opinions ; 
these  opinions  are  completely  fuscd  m  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  written  in  the  year  170. 

The  Apocalypse,  burning  with  Jewish  hate,  is, 
on  the  contrary,  one  of  the  earhest  Petrine  writings. 

Like  all  systems  constructed  on  bold  and  simple 
lines,  the  system  of  Baur  easily  lends  itself  to  dis- 
cussion. By  its  claim  to  explain  everything  by  a 
unique  discovery  of  genius,  it  is  even  somewhat 

1.  Act.  x;  XV,  10. 

2.  Act.  XX,  16;  xxi,  26;  xvi,  3. 


THE    ORIGINS    OF    CHRISTIANITY  203 

open  to  ridicule ;  it  is  rare  that  vital  phenomena  are 
so  readily  brought  back  to  very  clear  principles. 
Ironical  remarks,  not  wholly  unjustified,  have  been 
made  about  the  Petrinism  and  Pauhnism  whose 
combination  would  have  given  birth  to  the  Church. 
The  teaching  of  Hegel,  of  whose  philosophy  Baur 
was  a  professed  follower,  is  recognized  by  critics 
as  one  of  the  principal  factors  in  the  production  of 
the  system.  Petrinism  is  set  forth  as  a  thesis; 
Paulinism  is  its  antithesis ;  naturally  the  conciliation 
and  the  compromise  are  the  synthesis.  All  takes 
place  in  the  rythm  of  the  philosophy  of  Hegel. 
Mr.  Albert  Schweitzer  rightly  remarks  that  the 
Tubingen  school  employs  the  language  of  Paul  to 
produce  an  imposing  philosophy  of  religion  ani- 
mated by  a  Hegelian  influence  ^. 

I  think  that  we  must  recognize,  moreover,  the 
directing  principle  of  Protestantism  in  this  con- 
struction. Would  not  the  best  justification  of 
Luther  be  found  in  the  establishment  of  the  thesis 
that  he  came  back  to  the  pure  doctrine  of  that 
Apostle  who  first  understood  the  meaning  of  Chris- 
tianity? Does  not  this  homage  of  history,  rendered 
to  the  absolute  rehgion  of  the  individual  spirit  of 
liberty,  mean  an  assured  triumph  over  the  Roman 
papacy,  over  the  see  of  Peter,  over  the  whole 
Catholic  Church?  Peter,  whose  successor  claims 
to  be  infallible,  would  himself  have  understood 
nothing  of  the  thought  of  Jesus.     For  Baur,  through 

1.  Paul  and  his  Interpreters,  p.  16.  This  work  is  the 
English  translation  of  Schweitzer's  Geschichte  der  Pauli- 
nischen  Forschung  von  der  Reformation  bis  auf  die  Gegenwart, 
in-8«>,  xii-197  pp.,  Cf.  Revue  Biblique,  1914,  p.  288  ff. 


204  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

respect  for  the  Savior,  seems  to  bring  back  to  Him 
the  idea  of  the  universal  rehgion.  It  is  not  without 
interest  to  remark  this  Lutheran  inspiration  at  the 
beginning  of  studies  which  presented  themselves 
as  purely  critical.  ^ 

II 

Baur's  System  tested  3y  his  Disciples. 


Some  of  the  disciples  of  Baur  applied  themselves 
to  the  development  of  his  thought.  Others,  while 
they  claimed  to  remain  faithful  to  his  spirit, 
pushed  his  conclusions  much  further  than  he  had. 
The  Tubingen  school  has  had  ultra-Tiibingeners. 
Such  cases  are  not  rare  in  the  history  of  criticism. 
The  master  had  accorded  to  Paul  the  four  great 
Epistles.  But  why?  On  the  ground  that  in  them 
the  doctrine  of  Paul  is  found  in  its  purity,  and  his 
opposition  to  the  Law  absolute.  The  conclusion 
was  questioned.  How  could  one  know  that  Paul- 
inism  was  clearly  defined  from  the  first?  Do  not 
all  doctrines  evolve  towards  their  final,  maximalist, 
form,  and  then  appear  in  all  their  purity  in  the  eyes 
of  all?  Now  this  maximum  point  of  Paulinism  is 
found  in  the  system  of  the  heretic  Marcion,  who 
taught  his  dogmas  in  Rome  about  the  year  150. 
Marcion,  more  logical  than  Paul,  kept  nothing 
of  Judaism,  not  even  the  prophecies.  The  whole 
Old  Testament  was  according  to  him  the  work  of 
a  God  of  second  rank,  other  than  the  good  God 
revealed  in  Jesus.     Now  if  the  four  great  Pauline 


THE    ORIGINS    OF    CHRISTIANITY  205 

Epistles  have  not  reached  such  developments,  they 
may  be  regarded  as    coming  shortly   before  their 
formulation    and    preparing   the    way    for    them. 
Paul,  brought  up  by  the  Pharisees,  could  hardly 
arrive  immediately  at  the  abrogation  of  the  Law, 
especially  if  his  conversion  was  not  due  to  a  mirac- 
ulous intervention.     What  is  suggested  rather  by 
the  laws  of  evolution,  is  that  he  shared  the  Jewish 
prejudices  of  the  other  Apostles,  save  some  tend- 
encies to  free  himself  from  the  Law,  and  that  Ills  • 
doctrine  later  developed  in  a  logical  way  to  end  in 
an   open  rupture   with   Judaism  in  the   time   of 
Marcion.     This  view  seemed  all  the  more  plausible 
because  the  Tubingen  school  was  inclined  to  speak 
of  a  mixture  of  Hellenic  ideas  in  the  Epistles  attrib- 
uted to  Paul.     It  required  time   for  Hellenism  to 
penetrate    Jewish    messianism.     In    truth,    Baur 
showed  himself  too  timid.     One  has  only  to  apply 
his  principles  to  upset  his  too  moderate  conclusions. 
The  attack  was  led  at  first  by  Bruno  Bauer  in  Ger- 
many, then  by  the  Dutch  scholars  Pierson,  Naber, 
Loman  and  von  Manen,  finally  by  the  German 
Swiss,    Rodolph  Stock.   ^     In  immense   majority, 
German  critics  have  protested  against  these  excess- 
es. 

There  are  no  authentic  documents  if  we  have  to 
deny  St.  Paul's  authorship  of  the  Epistles  which 
bear  his  name.  The  accent  is  not  that  of  an  imi- 
tator. They  are  not  treatises  which  could  have 
been  composed  under  an  assumed  name,  or  prophe- 

1.  See  the  author's  rommentaire  de  I'epitre  aux  Galaies, 
Introduction,  p.  lxxix  IT.  , 


206  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

cies  of  uncertain  date.  Everything  in  them  hves, 
is  concerned  with  actual  events  and  particular 
circumstances,  everything  in  them  manifests  the 
sincerity  and  even  the  passion  of  an  incomparable 
preacher  of  the  Gospel  in  its  beginnings. 

But  it  was  not  enough  to  attack  the  fancies  of  the 
radicalism  which  had  come  from  Baur;  the  master 
himself  was  attacked.  The  very  thing  which  had  at 
first  aroused  the  greatest  admiration  was  the  first 
to  inspire  distrust.  The  discovery  of  a  principle 
which  would  allow  one  to  determine  the  authenti- 
city of  the  New  Testament  writings  and  to  date 
them,  w^ould  be  a  great  event.  Baur  was  at  first 
credited  with  such  a  discovery;  then  it  was  seen 
that  the  marvelous  key  had  not  been  found. 

Not  that  Germans  lack  confidence  in  internal 
criticism,  as  do  many  French  GathoHcs.  According 
to  some  of  our  representative  scholars,  the  exami- 
nation of  texts  is  insufficient  to  indicate  clearly 
the  time  of  their  composition.  Internal  criticism, 
as  this  examination  is  called,  is  hardly  allowed  to 
have  any  other  part  than  to  furnish  probabilities 
in  favor  of  tradition.  According  to  them  the  great 
crime  of  German  exegesis  would  be  precisely  the 
according  of  predominance  to  internal  criticism. 
It  may  be;  but  we  must  not  deny  that  internal 
criticism  has  much  to  say  about  dates. 

One  really  cannot  practice  criticism  without 
taking  account  of  that  development  of  doctrines,  of 
those  changes  in  legislation,  of  that  ebb  and  flow 
of  religious  sentiment,  of  those  movements  of  intel- 
lectual and  moral  hfe  which  one  may,  if  one  Ukes, 
call  evolution.     No  critic  can  understand  anything 


THE    ORIGINS    OF    CHRISTIANITY  207 

of  the  past,  if  he  has  not  first  learned  that  history 
never  begins  over  again.  It  does  not,  indeed, 
always  proceed  along  a  straight  line  and  in  contin- 
uous progress,  especially,  alas  !  in  the  moral  order; 
but  each  epoch  has  its  character,  and  the  products 
of  the  mind  ordinarily  bear  the  stamp  of  their  times. 
One  can,  then,  when  all  the  elements  of  the  problem 
are  well  considered,  distinguish  one  writing  from 
another  by  the  marks  left  on  them  by  their  time  of 
origin,  and  according  to  these  marks  assign  to  them, 
m.ore  or  less  approximately,  a  date.  And  do  not 
say  that  the  findings  of  this  internal  criticism  must 
always  give  way  to  the  external  testimonies  which 
fix  the  age  of  documents.  There  are  well  known 
examples  to  the  contrary,  in  cases  where  the  testi- 
monies from  without  are  much  later  than  the  period 
to  which  they  assign  the  writings  whose  origin  is 
•contested. 

Take  the  case  of  the  writings  attributed  to 
St.  Dionysius  the  Areopagite.  Those  who  main- 
tained the  authenticity  of  these  writings  did  not 
fail  to  array  the  homages  paid  them  by  the  Fathers 
and  by  Councils,  to  recall  the  place  held  by  them 
in  Cathohc  mystical  theology.  It  was  labor  lost, 
for  the  Dionysian  mysticism  presupposes  the 
•development  of  Neoplatonism,  which  began  to 
flourish  only  in  the  third  century.  Another  clear 
■case  is  that  of  the  false  decretals.  Though  they 
figure  with  their  former  rank  in  the  patristic  collec- 
tion of  Migne,  it  is  incontestable  that  they  are  not 
the  work  of  the  popes  whose  name  they  bear. 

Now  the  Bibhcal  writings,  like  all  others,  appear- 
ed in  time,  and  divine  inspiration,   while  making 

14 


208,  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

them  subserve  the  things  of  eternity,  has  not 
deprived  them  of  this  stamp  proper  to  the  things 
of  time.  Need  we  repeat  that  the  Book  of  Wisdom, 
though  it  makes  Wisdom  speak  by  the  m^outh  of 
Solomon,  cannot  be  the  work  of  that  king  of  Israel; 
and  that  all  accept  as  a  sufficient  reason  why  it 
cannot  be  regarded  as  his  work  that  it  bears  the 
mark  of  Alexandrine  conceptions? 

But  taking  all  this  for  granted,  we  may  ask  wheth- 
er Baur  spoke  the  truth,  as  it  is  discovered  by 
internal  criticism,  when  he  said  that  the  New 
Testament  authors  wrote  in  l^e  interest  of  the 
tendeDcies  of  which  we  have  spoken.  —  We  need 
not  deny  that  the  Evangelists,  for  instance,  had 
intentions,  and  if  you  prefer  the  word,  tendencies  : 
the  desire  to  make  known  the  miracles  wrought 
by  Jesus,  to  bear  witness  to  His  Resurrection,  to 
bring  catechumens  to  the  faith,  to  confirm  the 
faithful  in  their  adhesion  to  Christ,  or  even  simply 
to  satisfy  their  devotion  and  their  love.  But  since 
we  learn  from  the  texts  themselves  that  Jesus  had 
not  settled  the  question  regarding  the  Mosaic  Law, 
what  indication  is  there  that  such  or  such  uf  the 
New  Testament  books  were  written  in  favor  of 
Paulinism?  The  most  simple  and  effective  way 
for  a  Pauhnist  to  bring  about  the  triumph  of  his 
cause  was  to  place  on  the  lips  of  Jesus  a  Pauline 
statement.  Now  it  is  impossible  to  find  anything 
of  the  kind  in  the  Gospel  ascribed  to  St.  Luke. 

St.  Matthew's  Gospel  was  classed  as  Petrine 
because  Jesus  is  represented  as  saying  regarding 
the  Law,  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  "  I  came 
not  to  destroy  but  to  fulfil.  "     But  this  First  Gospel 


THE    ORIGINS    OF    CHRISTIANITY  209 

is,  with  St.  John's,  the  most  hostile  to  the  Pharisees, 
among  whom  the  so-called  Petrine  party  had  been 
recruited. 

The  Second  Gospel  was  thought  to  come  from  the 
concihation  party,  because  Baur,  hke  Strauss, 
regarded  it  as  composed  according  to  the  First 
and  Third.  But  criticism  is  unanimous  in  declaring 
it  the  first  in  date  of  the  Gospels  such  as  we  possess 
them.  It  is  incontestable  that  it  contains  the 
recollections  of  Peter,  and  it  is  no  less  certain  that 
its  author  was  imbued  with  what  Baur  called  the 
Pauline  idea  of  the  expiatory  death  of  Jesus.  And 
since  it  opens  the  series  of  the  Gospels,  the  union  of 
the  Petrine  and  Pauhne  elements  is  proved  not 
to  have  been  a  late  synthesis.  Is  it  a  synthesis  ?  Is 
it  not  rather  the  faithful  expression  of  the  thought  of 
Jesus  ?  For  it  is  Jesus  who  says  in  his  Gospel,  "  The 
Son  of  man  did  not  come  to  be  ministered  unto  but 
to  minister  and  to  give  his  life  as  a  ransom  for 
many.  "  ^  Instead  of  seeing  in  these  touching 
words  the  design  of  slipping  in  a  Pauhne  theorem 
among  the  narratives  of  Peter,  is  it  not  more  fitting 
to  see  in  them  the  first  principle,  the  Divine  fact, 
upon  which  all  the  Apostles  agreed? 

Finally,  at  the  same  time  that  the  difficulties  of 
the  conception  of  Baur  were  perceived,  the  testi- 
monies contained  in  the  tradition  of  the  first  Fathers 
were  urged  against  him  and  against  Strauss. 

I  shall  not  dwell  on  this  point.  The  examination 
of  patristic  tradition  did  not  interest  the  Tiibingen 
scholars;  and  I  need  not  enter  upon  this  domain 

1.  Mk.  X,  45. 


210  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

to  examine  their  doctrine.  Besides  I  could  not 
undertake  to  show  by  tradition  that  their  opinions 
about  New  Testament  chronology  are  wrong 
without  a  very  close  scrutiny  of  the  texts.  But  I 
may  assure  you  that  the  positions  of  Baur  have 
been  abandoned  one  after  the  other,  by  nearly 
everybody.  Baur  iiad  neglected  the  whole  philolog- 
ical department  of  New  Testament  exegesis ;  and 
grammar  and  lexicology,  when  consulted,  pronounc- 
ed against  him.  Everything  leads  to  the  belief 
that  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  the  Third  Gospel 
are  from  the  same  author,  and  the  same  may  be 
said  of  the  Apocalypse  and  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
This  does  not  mean  that  all  agree  about  the  compo- 
sition of  the  books  of  the  -New  Testament,  nor  that 
the  attempt  to  discover  their  tendencies  has  been 
given  up.  But  no  one  to-day  would  dare  apply 
Baur's  principle  to  determine  their  date,  for  this 
sufficient  reason  that  the  system  itself  has  been 
found  to  be  false.  The  principal  fault  of  this 
criticism  is  that  it  is  too  much  preoccupied  about 
the  intellectual  evt)lution  of  doctrines;  that  it 
builds  them  in  the  air  and  then  represents  upholders 
of  the  thesis  and  upholders  of  the  antithesis  oppos- 
ing them  one  to  another  to  the  accompaniment  of  a 
violent  interchange  of  argument;  in  a  word,  that 
it  thinks  of  Christianity  as  made  up  of  two  schools 
of  philosophers  and  of  early  preachers  and  con- 
fessors as  controversiahsts  engaged  hke  the  canons 
of  Boileau's  Lutrin  in  throwing  books  at  one  anoth- 
er's heads. 

To  avoid  a  too  arduous  discussion  of  details,  I 
shall  examine  the  main  features  of  the  Tubingen 


THE    ORIGINS    OF    CHRISTIANITY  211 

reconstruction  of  Christian  origirs  in  connection 
with  the  account  of  these  first  days,  as  it  is  given  by 
the  documents.  It  is  the  best  method  to  bring  out 
what  is  artificial  and  fantastic  in  the  system. 


Ill 

The  Apostolic  Witness  Consistent. 

The  Apostles  had  recognized  in  Jesus  the  Messias 
awaited  by  the  people  of  Israel.  At  the  time  of 
Peter's  confession  at  Cfesarea  of  PhiMp  their  faith 
did  not  perhaps  rise  much  above  the  national 
hopes.  1  The  request  of  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee 
proves  how  much  ambition  was  mingled  with  their 
devotedness.  2  But  the  teaching  of  their  Master 
raised  them  little  by  little  above  this  level.  When , 
a!fter  the  trial  of  the  Passion,  they  saw  Him  risen, 
they  understood  that  His  Messiahship  was  not  that 
of  a  king,  son  of  David.  Not  that  they  had  at  first 
ceased  to  hope  for  the  restoration  of  Israel,  ^  buii 
they  henceforth  knev/  that  Israel  was  invited  to 
seek  in  Jesus  remission   of  his  sins,  and  that  thi 

1.  Father  Lagrange  regards  the  text  of  Mt.  xvi,  16  as  a 
composite  statement.  The  confession  of  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus  would  alone  belong  to  the  situation  indicated  by  the 
Evangelist;  the  revelation  of  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  the  Son 
of  God  would  be  made  only  at  the  Transfiguration,  and  the 
confession  of  this  truth  would  belong  to  a  later  time.-Cf .  p.  304. 
(Note  of  the  translator.) 

2.  Mt.  XVI,  22  f.;  xx,  20  ff. 

3.  Acts  I,  6. 


212  THE    MEANING    6f    CHRISTIANITY 

call,  addressed  to  each  soul,  bore  its  fruit  in  Bap- 
tism. What  would  come  would  be  the  reign  of 
God.  Since  we  are  arguing  with  Baur,  let  us  leave 
aside  the  visioii  of  Peter  at  the  time  of  Cornelius' 
conversion.  Let  us  recall,  however,  the  first  three 
discourses  of  Peter,  preserved  in  Acts,  to  the  people 
and  ti  the  Sanhedrin,  the  tone  of  which  is  so  mani- 
festly primitive,  as  Baur  recognized;  in  them  one 
canni  t  fail  to  perceive  the  accent  «  f  a  moral  and 
religious  messianism,  which  regards  as  the  first 
essential  matter  reform  of  the  heart  by  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ. 

Persecuted  in  Jerusalem,  the  Apostles  spread 
over  Palestine  and  came  into  contact  with  the 
Gentiles.  Were  they  tu  invite  these  Gentries,  that 
is,  all  who  were  not  Jews,  to  share  their  faith? 
If  they  consulted  Scripture,  there  could  be  no 
room  for  doubt.  The  Servant  of  God  was  to  be 
the  light  of  the  nations.  ^  And  it  was  the  practice 
of  the  masters  in  Israel  to  recruit  proselytes  among 
the  Gentiles.  It  was  understood  at  the  time  that 
the  people  of  God  was  not  made  up  exclusively 
of  one  race;  one  might  be  admitted  into  it  by 
circumcision  and  acquire  a  right  to  the  world  to 
come  by  the  practice  of  the  Law  of  Moses. 

There  was,  then,  an  indication  that  the  Gentiles 
should  be  received  among  the  children  of  God 
who  believed  in  Christ;  that  they  should  be  purified 
by  Baptism,  and  admitted  to  common  prayer  and 
the  commemoration  of  the  Lord  in  the  Eucharistic 
meal.     These  new  converts,  Orientals  more  or  less 

1.  Is.  xLTi,  1-7,  etc. 


THE    ORIGINS    OF  '  CHRISTIANITY  213 

Hellenized,  then  real  Hellenes,  then  Romans  and 
barbarians,  found  in  the  Christian  preaching  much 
more  than  what  they  had  sought,  at  times  with 
anguish  and  passion,  in  Syrian  or  Egyptian  rites. 
They  found  pardon  of  sin,  moral  reformation,  hope 
of  eternal  hfe  with  a  God  who  had  so  loved  the 
world  as  to  give  it  His  only  Son.  How  would 
they  have  looked  to  Baptism  for  the  pardon  of 
their  sins  if  they  had  not  been  taught  that  such  was 
the  meaning  and  efficacy  of  this  foreign  rite? 
Moreover,  those  who  consented  to  be  baptized 
received  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  was  the  special 
grace  of  this  sacrament,  but  this  grace  was  then 
accompanied  by  wonderful  supernatural  gifts.  ^ 
There  was  in  the  beginning  of  Christianity,  an  effu-' 
sion  of  extraordinary  graces,  which  the  Christians 
witnessed,  of  which  the  documents  speak  as  a  fact 
known  to  all;  and  this  effusion  of  graces,  in  which 
people  saw  the  fulfilment  of  a  prophecy,  was 
granted  without  distinction  to  the  Gentiles  as  well 
as  to  the  Jews.  What  conclusion  was  to  be 
drawn?  That  the  Gentiles  were  pardoned,  that 
they  were  in  favor  with  God,  that  Jews  and 
Gentiles  were  under  the  influence  of  the  same 
Spirit  of  God.  In  their  fervor,  the  adherents  of  a 
new  doctrine  are  generally  very  closely  united;  we 
must  beheve  the  Acts  when  thy  tell  us  that  the 
first  believers  had  but  one  heart  and  one  soul. 
They  had,  then,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  only  one 
faith,  as  the  principle  of  their  union.  It  is  into  one 
of  these  new  Christian  societies  that  one  should 

1.  I  Cor.  XII ;  Act.  ii,  etc. 


214  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

eater  to  find  out  whether  in  reahty,  independently 
of  Paul's  intervention,  the  converted  Jews  expected 
of  Jesus  only  the  fulfilment  of  their  national 
dream.  It  would  be  very  strange  that  this  dream 
attracted  so  many  strangers.  But  besides,  we 
know  by  those  very  Epistles  of  Paul  which  Baur 
pronounces  authentic,  that  most  of  the  Jews 
remained  deaf  to  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles. 
The  reason,  St.  Paul  tells  us,  is  that  they  did  not 
know  the  real  nature  of  the  righteousness  required 
by  God,  that  they  obstinately  persisted  in  seeking 
righteousness  not  in  Christ  but  in  the  Law;  and, 
again,  that  the  Cross  was  for  them  a  stumbling- 
block,  that  they  did  not  will  to  seek  in  the  death  of 
Christ  the  pardon  accorded  to  the  world  by  God. 
Paul,  indeed,  interprets  the  fact  according  to  his 
own  principles,  but  the  fact  he  did  not  invent; 
the  preaching  of  the  Apostles  had  little  success 
among  the  Jews.  He  does  not,  either,  invent  the 
explanation  of  the  fact;  no  other  reason  can  be 
given  than  that  which  he  had  learned  from  his 
experience.  The  preaching  of  the  first  Apostles 
was,  then,  that  men  m.ust  ask  God  pardon  of  sins 
through  the  power  of  the  death  of  Christ.  All 
Christians  agreed  on  this  point,  and  they  formed  a 
Church,  according  to  the  words  of  Paul,  who 
confesses  that  he  persecuted  it.  ^  Paul  is  not  a 
philosopher  who  conceives  a  system  and  who, 
after  having  ripened  and  developed  it,  compares  it 
to  another  system.  He  is  a  man  of  action  who 
enters  the  Church  he  had  persecuted,  because  it 

1.  Gal.  I,  13. 


THE    ORIGINS    OF    CHRISTIANITY  215 

possesses  the  truth.  It  is  true  that  he  does  not  sit 
at  the  feet  of  the  Apostles.  He  is  conscious  of 
having  been  enhghtened  by  God  who  revealed  to 
him  His  Son  Jesus  Christ  and  gave  him  that 
revelation  which  unfolded  in  his  mind  into  a  theo- 
logy. But  he  is  conscious,  likewise,  of  having 
preached  the  same  faith  which  he  had  hitherto 
persecuted;  and  the  Churches  of  Judea,  those  of  the 
Petrinists,  recognize  that  he  does  so  and  glorify 
God.  1  There  is  in  the  New  Testament  no  trace  of 
a  conflict  between  Peter  and  Paul  concerning  the 
salvation  which  both  ascribe  to  Baptism  and  to 
faith  in  Christ  Jesus. 

Were  they  at  odds  concerning  the  duty  of  prac- 
ticing the  Jewish  law? 

The  Jews  converted  to  Jesus  Christ  continued  to 
practice  the  traditional  observances.  The  Apostles 
themselves  went  up  to  the  Temple  to  pray.  And 
doutless  if  a  few  Gentiles  were  converted  in  the 
cities  of  Palestine,  especially  at  Jerusalem,  they 
would  readily  lend  themselves  to  the  observation 
of  the  Law  which  was  the  rule  around  them.  But 
the  Gospel  spread  far  from  Judea,  in  cities  in  which 
the  pagan  element  predominated.  The  Gentiles 
were  entering  the  Church  in  great  numbers.  Bar- 
nabas and  Paul,  who  distinguished  themselves  as 
apostles  of  the  Gentiles  in  Syria  and  at  Antioch, 
asked  of  them  nothing  more  than  a  sincere  adhesion 
of  mind  and  heart  to  the  salvation  which  was  an- 
nounced to  them.  Of  the  Jewish  law,  there  was 
no  question.     The  Gentiles,  without  asking  whe- 

1.  Gal.  I,  22-24. 


216  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

ther  it  was  abrogated  or  not,  did  not  think  of 
practicing  it,  and  no  one  constrained  them  to  do  so. 

We  have  then,  in  the  beginning,  not  precisely 
two  theses,  nor  the  thesis  and  the  antithesis,  but 
two  practices.  The  theoretical  problem  was 
solved  by  the  life  of  the  Church,  directed  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  according  to  the  fundamental  principle 
of  faith. 

However  a  thesis  was  stated  when,  nearly  twenty 
years  after  the  Resurrection  of  Christ,  there  entered 
upon  the  scene  at  Antioch  some  Jews  whom 
St.  Paul  calls  simply  false  brethren.  ^  All  those 
who  thought  as  did  these  Jews  did  not  perhaps 
deserve  such  a  qualification,  and  many  may  have 
been  in  very  good  faith.  The  God  of  Israel  had 
given  a  law  to  His  people,  a  law  whose  practice  had 
been  preached  by  the  prophets,  a  law  which  was 
to  be,  like  the  Messias,  a  light  for  the  nations,  since 
it  was  of  divine  origin.  It  appeared,  then,  to  some 
Jews  become  Christians  that  the  Messias  and  the 
Law  were  two  coordinate  instruments  in  the  desigps 
of  God  to  procure  His  reign,  the  mission  of  the 
Messias  being  to  bring  all  the  peoples  to  the  practice 
of  the  Law.  The  first  duty  of  the  Gentiles  convert- 
ed to  the  Messias  was,  then,  to  practice  the  fun- 
damental article  of  the  alhance  made  not  with 
Moses  only,  but  with  Abraham,  the  father  of 
believers,  who  received  circumcision  as  a  sign  of 
the  covenant. 

Such  is  the  thesis,  which  Baur  called  Petrinism, 
but  which  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  ascribes  to 

1.  Gal.  II,  4. 


THE    ORIGINS    OF    CHRISTIANITY  217 

"  false  brethren.  "  We  do  not  see  at  first  the  rise 
of  an  antithesis  on  the  abrogation  of  the  Law.  The 
Gentiles  asked  only  that  they  be  left  free.  They 
would  not,  however,  be  in  disagreement  with  the 
Apostles  of  Jerusalem,  who  had  known  Jesus,  and 
they  ah-eady  showed,  that  they  were  in  agreement 
with  them,  when  they  took  them  for  judges.  Bar- 
nabas and  Paul  started  for  Jerusalem. 

It  is  at  Jerusalem  that  the  question  was  examined 
and  solved. 

Jesus  had  not,  strange  to  say,  and  to  the  scandal 
of  many,  settled  the  matter  beforehand.  He  had 
not  taught  the  Apostles  that  the  Law  would  cease 
to  bind.  He  had  founded  the  Church  and  given 
her  a  chief;  but  He  had  not  told  this  chief  that  the 
Church  was  to  be  freed  from  Mosaic  observances. 
Inexplicable  lacuna !  cry  out  those  who  know  how 
states  are  founded.  Why  did  Jesus  not  compose 
a  definitive  theological  Summa,  or  at  least  a  com- 
plete symbol  of  faith?  The  same  difficulty  might 
be  raised  every  time  there  is  a  doubt  in  the  Church. 
This  silence  cannot  embarrass  anyone  but  Protes- 
tants, who  recognize  no  living  auth'^^^^^ity.  It  was 
astonishing  silence,  but  worthy  of  a  Divine  Found- 
er! Ihe  great  statesman  who  is  about  to  disap- 
pear endeavors  to  foresee  everything  and  gives 
instructions  as  explicit  as  he  can.  A  still  great- 
er man  would  hold  his  peace,  as  did  Alexander, 
realizing  the  impossibihty  of  regulating  the  future. 
Jesus  says  :  "  Go  and  preach,  teach  all  nations,  I 
will  be  with  you.  "  He  has  given  authority  to  His 
Church;  this  authority,  with  His  assistance,  must 
suffice. 


218  THE    MEANIiIg    of    CHRISTIANITY 

The  leaders  of  the  Church  had,  then,  to  decide 
what  was  to  be  beheved  and  done;  and  they 
decided  not  to  obhge  the  Gentiles  to  receive  cir- 
cumcision. ^ 

It  is  here  that  Baur's  criticism  comes  in.  In  his 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  Paul,  the  champion  of 
freedom,  affirms  that  his  practice  was  recognized 
as  legitimate.  He  said  that  the  notables  of  Jeru- 
salem imposed  nothing  upon  the  converted  Gentiles 
which  would  subject  them  in  part  to  the  Law  of 
Moses.  2  On  the  contrary,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
present  the  decision  as  a  compromise.  ^  The 
converted  Gentiles  shall  not  be  held  to  circumcision, 
but  they  shall  abstain  from  the  impurity  of  idols, 
from  fornication,  from  blood,  and  from  the  meat 
of  animals  which  had  been  strangled ;  in  other,  more 
modern  words,  they  are  held  to  correct  conduct  as 
regards  chastity,  and  forbidden  to  eat  the  flesh  of 
animals  sacrificed  to  idols  or  killed  in  a  way  that 
did  not  allow  of  thorough  bleeding.  There  is,  then, 
an  antinomy  between  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
and  the  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Galatians. 

I  confess  that,  in  regard  to  this  special  difficulty, 
critics  have  not  yet  reached  an  agreement.  I  shall 
not  draw  you  into  this  discussion,  which  requires 
careful  handling.  *  One  may,  without  recourse  to 
any  disloyal  evasion,  look  upon  these  four  restric- 
tions as  an  administrative  accommodation  destined 


1.  Gal.  II,   3,  ff. 

2.  Gal.  II,  6. 

3.  Acts  XV,  26. 

4.  See  the  author's  Commentaire  sur",l'epitre  aux^Galates. 


THE    ORIGINS    OF    CHRISTIANITY  219 

to  foster  good  relations.  Circumcision  not  being 
required  of  the  Gentiles,  they  are  not  forced  to 
enter  Judaism  to  go  to  Jesus  Christ.  This  question 
of  principle  settled,  Paul  is  not  concerned  about 
rules  required  by  charity.  He  was  prepared  to 
do  much  more,  to  show  himself  a  Jew  with  Jews  to 
win  them  to  Jesus  Christ.  ^  Once  it  is  well  under- 
stood that  circumcision  has  no  value  for  salvation, 
nor  any  other  point  of  the  Law,  he  is  willing  that 
one  should  observe  legal  prescriptions  in  the  interest, 
of  the  Gospel.  It  is  thus  that  we  may  explain  his 
yielding  to  Jewish  wishes,  which  Baur  judges 
contrary  to  his  moral  dignity;  it  is  but  another 
manifestation  of  his  Apostohc  soul.  Everything 
the  Acts  relate  of  his  respect  for  the  Law  comes  from 
the  same  spirit.  But  this  same  Paul  would  not 
permit  a  concession  which  might  appear  compro- 
mising for  principles  and  which  would  be  an 
obstacle  to  the  apostolate.  This  is  what  explains 
his  attitude  towards  St.  Peter. 

Remember  Baur's  contention.  At  Jerusalem, 
Peter  and  the  Apostles,  though  convinced  tha'.  the 
Gentiles  converted  by  Paul  were  not  in  the  way  of 
salvation,  not  only  left  him  free  to  go  on  with  his 
work,  but  concluded  with  him  a  formal  agreement 
the  day  they  gave  him  the  hand  of  -fellowship.  This 
agreement  was  but  a  vulgar  bargain,  if,  based  on  no 
conviction,  it  was  arrived  at  on  the  understanding 
that  Paul  should  send  to  Jerusalem  alms  gathered 
among  the  Gentiles.  And  Paul,  who  had  come 
to  Jerusalem  to  see  whether  he  had  run  in  vain  as 

1.  I  Cor.  IX,  20. 


220  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

his  Opponents  maintained,  would  have  upheld 
neither  the  rights  nor  the  truth  of  the  Gospel.  It 
is  such  a  transaction  that  would  be  guilty;  and  it 
would  be  as  dishonorable  for  Paul  as  for  Peter, 
James  and  John.  But  St.  Paul's  text  speaks  of  an 
accord  sincere  on  both  sides,  which  solves  abso- 
lutely the  question  of  principle,  and  secures  the 
maintenance  of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel.  ^  His 
reproach  to  St.  Peter  at  Antioch,  which  it  would  be 
wrong  to  dissemble,  or  to  suppose  addressed  to  an 
unknown  Cephas,  proves  precisely  that  Peter  and 
Paul  were  at  one  on  principles,  and  even,  up  to  a 
certain  moment,  on  their  application.  If  Peter  had 
believed  the  Law  obhgatory,  even  for  Gentiles, 
how  could  he  have  dispensed  himself  from  it  ?  How 
could  Paul  say  to  Him,  "  If  thou,  being  a  Jew,  livest 
as  do  the  Gentiles,  how  dost  thou  oblige  the  Gen- 
tiles to  live  as  do  the  Jews  ?  "  ^  Peter  lived  as  did 
the  Gentiles,  and  Paul  did  not  tell  him  that  this  was 
contrary  to  his  principles,  but,  oil  the  contrary, 
that  he  was  getting  away  from  his  principles  when 
he  gave  up  eating  with  the  Gentiles,  through  fear 
of  the  determined  Judaizers.  Peter's  principles 
are  not  represented  as  more  Jewish  than  those  of 
Barnabas,  the  companion  of  Paul,  who  joined  Peter 
in  his  inconsistent  conduct. 

Peter,  Jam.es  and  John,  Paul  and  Barnabas,  were 
in  accord  because  they  sought  their  salvation  in 
faith  in  Christ,  who  had  reconciled  them  with  God 
and  who  stretched  forth  His  arms  to  all  men,  Jew 
or  Gentile.     The  theoretical  question  which  might 

1.  Gal.  II,  14. 


THE    ORIGINS    OF    CHRISTIANITY  221 

have  divided  them  had  been  settled  by  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Paul's  preaching,  his 
groups  of  believers  converted  without  circumcision, 
were  the  work  of  God;  all  his  converts  formed  part, 
of  the  Church  of  God.  If  there  were  doubts  before 
the  meeting  at  Jerusalem,  they  could  not  bear  upon 
the  only  principle  of  rehgious  union,  salvation  in 
Jesus  Christ.  In  joining  the  Church,  Paul  adhered 
to  this  principle.  His  role  was  to  deduce  more 
distinctly  its  consequences,  for  it  involved  the 
abrogation  of  the  Law  even  for  the  Jews.  But 
Paul  was  not  preoccupied  about  the  ultimate  prac- 
tical apphcations  of  his  opinions.  Charged  with 
the  evangehzation  of  the  Gentiles,  he  showed 
himself  full  of  deference  for  the  Apostles  of  the 
circumcision,  especially  for  James.  Is  it  just  to  cut 
these  facts  out  of  history,  under  the  pretext  of 
making  the  dialectics  of  the  rehgion  of  the  absolute 
work  out  inflexibly? 

All  this  evolution  of  Christianity,  freeing  itself 
little  by  little  from  the  Jewish  law,  was  a  true  devel- 
opment, that  is  to  say,  a  transformation  due  not 
to  a  series  of  opportunist  measures,  nor  to  political 
concessions  between  two  parties,  but  to  the 
influence  of  one  principle  on  which  all  agreed.  In 
recognizing  Jesus  as  the  Messias,  the  first  disciples 
of  the  Apostles  and  the  Gentiles  asked  Him,  through 
the  inherent  power  of  His  death,  pardon  for  sin, 
reconcihation  with  God,  and  later  a  place  in  the 
kingdom  of  God.  To  seek  God  in  Jesus  Christ 
was  to  assure  one's  salvation,  was  to  belong  to  the 
people  of  God.  What  purpose  henceforth  had  that 
Law  whose  principal  aim  was  to  recruit  and  con- 


222  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

serve  a  people  into  the  Lord  ?  It  might  be  thought 
necessary  to  observe  the  national  rites  so  long  as  the 
temple  remained  standing.  Its  ruin  was  hke  an 
oracle,  announcing  a  new  epoch.  The  Christianity 
of  Paul  triumphed,  because  it  was  that  of  the 
primitive  Church,  that  which  had  as  its  foundation 
worship  rendered  to  Jesus,  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  or 
rather  the  Christ  Jesus  Himself. 


IV 
Greek  Philosophy  and   the  Gospel  of  Paul. 

To  recognize  this  as  the  meaning  of  primitive 
Christianity  is  not  to  derogate  from  the  glory  of 
Paul.  His  was  the  honor  of  receiving  into  his  soul 
the  revelation  which  he  developed  so  admirably. 
He  is  connected  with  the  first  Apostles,  and  he  is 
connected  with  the  first  Fathers.  Baur  had 
attacked  the  first  connection;  his  disciples,  more  or 
less  faithful,  have  tried  to  throw  new  light  upon 
the  second  connection,  that  which  secured  the 
transmission  of  doctrine  to  Greek  Christendom. 
They  sought  in  the  first  theologian  of  Christianity 
traces  of  the  turn  of  mind  or  of  the  doctrines  of 
Hellenism;  the  Greek  mind,  they  contended, 
must  have  somewhat  influenced  at  least  the 
shadings  of  his  religious  conception,  thus  rendering 
it  more  accessible  to  the  Gentiles  than  the  pure 
Judaism  of  the  first  Apostles. 

This  sort  of  research  is  not  contrary  to  Catholic 


THE    ORIGINS    OF    CHRISTIANITY  223 

principles  aiid  it  does  not  cast  discredit  upon  the 
sacred  writers.     The   older  exegetes  did,   indeed, 
look  at  things  from  another  angle.     When  they 
found  in  Seneca  truly  rehgious  thoughts,  a  constant 
concern  for  moral  perfection,  charitable  regard  for 
other  human  beings,   even  for  slaves,   whom  he 
would   see   treated   as   brothers,   they   noted   the 
distance  between  him  and  Cicero  and  sought  to 
explain  the  progress  by  Christian  influence.     They 
imagined  that  between  St.  Paul  and  the  philosopher 
there  had  been  an  interchange  of  letters  in  which 
the  minister  of  Nero  played  the  part  of  disciple. 
But  Seneca  is  easily  connected  with  the  line  of 
Stoic  moralists;  he  is  more  human  than  his  prede- 
cessors, but  others  will  follow  him  in  sympathy 
for  men.     At  Tiibingen  the  question  was  rather, 
whether  Paul  had  not  borrowed  something  from  th*e 
philosophy  of  his  time.     Would  it,   after  all,  be 
astonishing  that  one  who  kn3W  how  to  become  a 
Jew  with  the  Jews,  a  Gentile  with  the  Gentiles, 
who  had,  according  to  Acts  ^  quoted  a  half-verse  of 
Aratus,  should  have  used  his  Hellenic  culture  to 
construct  his  theology?     He  would  in  this  have 
done  only  what    the   theologians   of  the   Middle 
Ages  were  to  do,  and  St.  Thomas   Aquinas   more 
boldly    than    anyone    else,    when   they  incorpor- 
ated  into  their  Siimmas  the  best  part  of  ancient 
wisdom. 

And  could  he  even  do  otherwise?     The  Judaism 
of  his  time  had  been  for  centuries  in  contact  with 


1,   Act.  XVII,  28  :  'oO  *p?  '^•'^'-  '{^"^^■'^  £7;j.£v,   in   Aratus, 
Pkaenom.,  II.  ' 


224  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

Hellenism.  Borne  upon  the  win^s  of  victory  with 
Alexander,  the  Greek  genius  had  carried  on  the 
conquest  of  Asia  after  the  premature  death  of  the 
young  hero.  For  a  moment  it  had  seemed  on  the 
point  of  triumphing  at  Jerusalem  as  it  had  in  the 
other  Syrian  cities.  The  reaction  of  the  faithful 
companions  of  the  Macliabees  had  averted  a  com- 
plete defeat  of  pure  Judaism  in  the  Holy  City;  but 
Hellenism  was  to  penetrate  into  it  insidiously  in  the 
days  of  the  last  Asmoneans,  more  openly  in  the 
reign  of  Herod.  Everywhere  else  its  influence  was 
paramount,  particularly  at  Tarsus  where  Paul  was 
born,  and  where,  since  he  was  a  Roman  citizen, 
he  must  have  received  a  good  education.  These 
general  considerations  have  their  weight.  They 
have  been  exploited  as  a  support  by  those  who 
deny  the  special  action  of  God  in  the  propagation 
of  Christianity.  Judaism,  with  its  barbarian 
origin  and  its  national  character,  had  no  chance  of 
being  adopted  by  the  Greeks.  Nevertheless,  they 
desired  a  rehgion  more  serious  than  their  own,  one 
less  compromised  by  mythology,,  rich  in  promises 
of  salvation.  A  recipe  bound  to  be  successful  would 
combine  with  Jewish  monotheism,  so  elevated  as  a 
conception,  so  pure  in  its  morals,  so  seductive  in  its 
promises  of  eternal  hfe,  an  appearance  of  Greek 
philosophy.  It  was  insinuated  that  the  success  of 
Christianity  was  due  in  part  to  the  elaboration  of 
Judaism  in  the  mind  of  Paul,  in  which  it  mingled, 
whether  by  juxtaposition  or  by  fusion,  with  ele- 
ments of  Greek  origin. 

But,  in  the  first  place,  the  authors  of  this  system 
forgot  that  the  recipe  had  been  tried,  and  long  since, 


THE    ORIGINS    OF    CHRISTIANITY  225 

by  the  Jews  of  Alexandria.  History,  philoF-opliy, 
poetry,  works  composed  under  the  names  of  the 
masters  of  Hellenism,  or  falsification  of  their  texts, 
all  had  been  made  use  of  to  convince  the  Greeks  in 
the  most  appropriate  manner  that  Judaism  was  the 
depositary  of  religious  truth.  The  effort  met  with 
little  success.  And  when,  after  the  ruin  of  Jeru- 
salem, this  Judaism  pohshed  by  Greek  civihzation 
ceased  to  be  in  contact  with  the  authentic  and 
uncompromising  Judaism  of  Palestine,  it  was  the 
faith  of  the  rabbis  which  was  perpetuated  in  its 
integrity.  The  fusion  had  failed,  and  the  attempt 
was  not  renewed. 

And,  nevertheless,  Philo,  to  name  only  him, 
had  done  everything  to  attract  the  Greeks.  The 
national  history  which  might  arouse  their  hosti- 
lity was  volatihzed  into  subtle  allegories,  in  the 
taste  of  Stoic  philosophers.  The  morals  were 
theirs,  with  their  fundamental  principle  that  man's 
perfection  consists  in  living  according  to  nature. 
The  Prophets,  friends  of  God,  had  received  from 
Him-  truthful  oracles.  .This  was  the  foundation 
of  a  mystical  system  which  the  Old  Testament 
had  not  developed,  but  which  Philo  knew  how  to 
combine  with  the  mystical  tendencies  of  Plato- 
nism.  Now  all  this  had  little  effect  —  except 
upon  the  Christian  apologists.  The  Greek  world 
was  refractory.  Among  the  Romans,  more  inclin- 
ed to  appreciate  moral  values,  Judaism  made 
more  progress,  but  rather,  it  would  seem,  by  its 
uncompromising  character  than  by  its  concess- 
ions. At  least  Juvenal  depicts  the  sons  of  con- 
verts   as    more    zealous    than    their   fathers,   and 


226  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

Epictetus  is  the  echo  of  the  contempt  incurred 
by  half-Jews.  ^ 

The  combination  of  Greek  philosophy  with 
Judaism  was  not  acceptable.  Behind  the  fa- 
cade, which  was  hke  the  adorned  front  of 
an  ancient  theatre,  the  Gentiles  perceived  the 
obHgation  to  keep  the  sabbath,  to  abstain  from 
certain  foods,  to  practice  circumcision."  The  sab- 
bath would  only  have  been  another  hohday,  but 
the  rest  of  the  program  seemed  too  hard. 

It  is  perfectly  evident,  of  course,  that  Paul 
helped  the  expansion  of  Christianity  by  freeing 
the  Gentiles  from  the  Jewish  law.  But  this  abro- 
gation of  the  law  is  only  a  practical  consequence 
of  his  doctrine;  it  was,  we  have  just  said,  admit- 
ted by  the  whole  Church.  It  is  not  what  people 
mean  when  they  speak  of  an  infiltration  of  Greek 
ideas  in  to  the  theology  of  Paul.  What  they  do 
mean  is  not  made  perfectly  clear.  According  to 
Mr.  Schweitzer,  critics  more  or  less  dependent  on 
the  school  of  Tubingen  sometimes  give  the  im- 
pression that,  in  this  difficult  matter,  they  pur- 
posely render  their  discussions  a  httle  obscure  and 
incoherent,  and  are  more  preoccupied  with  hiding 
than  revealing  their  views,  in  order  not  to  expose 
them  to  attacks. 

We  may,  however,  illustrate  their  point  of  view 
by  stating  the  question  they  raise  concerning' 
the  peculiarly  Pauline  teaching  about  the  flesh  and 
the  spirit.     There  is  in  Plato  a  vehement  sentiment 


1.  On   these   points  see   Le   Messianisme   chez  les   Juifs, 
pp.  278-281. 


^  THE    ORIGINS    OF    CHRISTIANITY  227 

of  the  opposition  betweeii  the  reason  and  the  lower 
passions,  which  he  treats  as  wild  beasts.  The  soul 
is  in  the  body  as  in  a  prison;  i'  must  be  freed  from 
the  flesh  to  contemplate  ideas  and  God  Himself. 
Is  it  not  from  these  aspirations  towards  the  life 
of  the  spirit  that  Paul  has  borrowed  his  dualism, 
his  teaching  concerning  the  opposition  between 
the  two  powers  which  struggle  within  us? 

To-day  no  one  would  dare  to  say  so.  Compar- 
ison shows  that  the  systems  agree  in  one  point, 
namely,  the  antagonism  between  reason  and  the  evil 
tendencies  of  our  nature,  described  by  Paul  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans.  But  this  is  only  a  common- 
place of  moralists,  a  fact  observed  by  Euripides  as 
well  as  by  Plato,  and  even  by  the  frivolous  Ovid;  it 
is  a  state  of  conscience  that  any  one  may  realize. 
The  part  of  philosophical  thought  begins  when  one 
seeks  the  origin  of  this  intestine  war  which  seems 
to  reveal  in  us  two  principles  of  action  distinct  and 
opposed.  From  this  point,  Plato  and  Paul  each 
follows  his  own  w^ay.  Plato  distinguishes  two  and 
even  three  souls,  and  going  deeper,  he  discovers  the 
^  first  principle  of  the  struggle  which  rends  us  in  the 
antinomy  between  spirit  and  matter.  The  soul, 
which  is  spiritual  in  its  nature,  has  fallen  into  the 
body  to  atone  for  a  fault;  she  will  pursue  her  own 
destinies  on  regain'ng  independence  ^.  According 
to  St.  Paul,  man  dragged  down  by  sin  cannot 
triumph  over  it  altogether  by  the  force  of  reason;  he 
needs  to  have  the  Holy  Ghost  act  on  him  and 
within    him.     But    the    powers    hostile    to    that 

1.  See  especially  Plato's  Phaedra. 


228  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

Spirit  which  gives  Itself  to  him,  are  not  proper  to 
the  body  alone;  they  reside  also  in  the  reasonable 
part  of  man;  the  point  is  not  to  overcome  the  ele- 
ments of  matter,  but  to  die  to  a  life  engaged  in  sin. 
and  to  live  a  Divine  life.  The  Divine  life  begins  even 
now,  when  we  are  body  and  soul;  it  will  have  its 
complete  expansion  after  the  resurrection  when  the 
body  is  spirituahzed.  Paul  needs  not  to  borrow 
from  books;  he  has  consciousness  of  the  change 
accomplished  in  humanity.  What  are  the  uncer- 
tain ideas  of  Plato,  his  appeals  more  or  less  authen- 
tic for  divine  help,  ^  compared  to  the  chant  of 
triumph  of  Paul,  sure  of  the  love  of  God  in  Christ? 
Moreover,  this  aspect  of  the  Platonic  philosophy, 
soliciting  divine  influences,  was  almost  forgotten  in 
the  first  century  of  our  era.  Neoplatonism  will 
disengage  from  it  a  whole  mystic  system.  But  in 
Paul's  times  the  most  widespread  philosophy,  that 
of  the  Stoics,  hardly  recognized  any  need  of  the 
help  of  God.  Despite  some  sentences  about 
prayer,  —  which  must  be  understood  in  the  sense  of 
pantheism,  — -  Seneca,  like  all  the  other  masters  of 
the  school,  counted  only  upon  the  free  will  of  man 
to  secure  his  destiny.  "  The  wise  man  is  the 
companion  of  the  gods,  he  is  not  th^r  supplicant.  "  ^ 
This  is  the  firm  conviction  of  all  the  philosophers 
who  believed  in  Providence.  The  others  thought 
with  Epicurus  that  the  gods  did  not  concern 
themselves  with  men.     All  this  popular  philosophy 


1.  It  is  known  that  the  second  Alcihiades  is  not  certainly 
the  work  of  Plato. 

2.  Ep.  XXXI,  8. 


THE    ORIGINS    OF    CHRISTIANITY  229 

was  properly  estimated  by  St.  Paul  when  he  saw 
in  the  ignoring  of  God  the  source  of  all  moral  degra- 
dation. 

Consequently,  the  effort  to  make  Greek  philo- 
sophy figure  among  the  sources  of  St.  Paul's  theol- 
ogy has  been  given  up.  The  Tubingen  movement, 
in  this  respect  as  well  as  in  regard  to  primitive 
Petrinism,  has  found  itself  in  a  cul-de-sac. 

This  does  not  mean  that  people  have  given  up 
the  quest.  The  positive  system  has  fallen;  the 
tendencies  of  the  Apostolic  age  are  still  the  object  of 
study  and  the  source  of  inferences.  And  it  is  ever 
a  tendency  trial  to  which  the  writings  of  the  New 
Testament  are  subjected,  though  it  is  granted  that 
the  one  criterion  of  Baur  does  not  settle  everything. 
Critics  however  are  no  longer  satisfied  with 
classing  documents  according  to  their  tendencies; 
they  appeal  to  the  least  particularities  in  concepts 
to  attribute  one  Gospel  to  two  or  many  authors. 
Since  the  days  of  Baur,  internal  criticism  has  not 
ceased  to  multiply  its  efforts  in  every  direction; 
and  if  it  has  not  reached  any  system  of  equal  scope, 
it  is  because  the  disintegi^ation  of  the  docum.ents 
delays  indefinitely  the  formulation  of  a  synthetic 
view.  It  is  still  asked  whether  it  is  not  thanks  to 
Paul  that  Christianity  took  on  a  seductive  aspect  for 
Hellenism.  The  quest,  however,  abandoned  in  the 
fields  of  ancient  philosophy,  now  goes  on  in  the  more 
obscure  regions   of  Greek   or  Oriental   mysticism. 

But  before  taking  up  this  last  attempt,  we  shall 
have  to  notice  in  our  next  lecture  a  determined 
effort  at  concihatior  between  radicals  and  conser- 
vatives which  appeared  for  a  time  to  have  succeeded. 


SEVENTH  LECTURE 
THE  COMPROMISE  OF  THE  LIBERALS 

After  Baur,  we  no  longer  have  as  a  guide  in  our 
review  of  German  exegesis  the  learned  master  of 
St.  Sulpice,  Father  Vigouroux.  He  assigns  as  his 
reason  for  bringing  his  study  to  a  close  with  Baur, 
the  fact  that  rationahstic  Germany  has  since  pro- 
duced no  exegete  who  has  opened  up  new  paths  in 
the  domain  of  Biblical  criticism  ^.  The  reviewer, 
indeed,  is  now  confronted  with  the  difficult  task  of 
analysing  many  books  which  differ  but  slightly 
from  one  another.  This  likeness  results  from  the 
predominance  of  a  certain  tendency,  and  if  we  nave 
no  longer  to  deal  with  the  distinctive  actions  of 
scholars,  we  are  confronted  with  the  collective 
authority  of  the  universities  and  with  the  acquired 
results  of  criticism.  It  will  be  well  to  study  this 
situation,  before  taking  up  the  more  creative  period 
of  German  exegesis  which  began  towards  the  end  of 
the  last  century. 


Orthodox  Reaction  against  Strauss  and  the 
Radicalism  of  Bruno  Bauer. 

While  the  Tubingen  professors  preferred  to  look 
for  the  meaning  of  Christianity  in  the  v^ritings  of 

1.  Les  Livres  Saints,  II,  586. 


THE    COMPROMISE    OF    THE    LIBERALS  231 

St.  Pau],  whom  thoy  regarded  as  its  real  founder, 
other  professors  of  exegesis  and  theology  did  not 
think  of  abandoning  the  domain  of  the  Gospel. 

The  book  of  Strauss  had  provoked  a  very  clearly 
defined  reaction  towards  orthodoxy.  Protestants 
were  astonished  that  such  boldness  should  appear 
legitimate.  They  reproached  Strauss  with  not 
having  wTitten  in  Latin,  with  having  laid  before  the 
pubHc  problems  w^hich  w^ere  too  hard  for  it,  —  a 
complaint  justified  according  to  CathoUc  principles, 
un3xpected  on  the  part  of  Lutherans.  As  if  the 
Bible  were  not  clear,  and  as  if  Luther  had  not 
promised  to  every  behever  the  assistance  of  the 
Holy  Ghost !  The  prelates  of  the  Lutheran  com- 
munities at  last  understood  that  Pietism  was  no 
sufficient  barrier  against  increduhty,  that  it  made 
too  little  of  doctrine  and  the  confessions  of  faith. 
A  neo-Lutheranism  was  born,  for  the  greater  utility 
of  the  assertive  Prussian  state,  whose  defender  it 
became,  especially  after  threatening  events  of  1848. 

The  leader  of  the  movement  in  the  matter  of 
exegesis  was  Ernst  Wilhelm  Hengstenberg  ^,  of 
whom  M.  Lichtenberger  has  drawn  an  amusing 
caricature.  His  paper,  he  says,  which  was  "  evan- 
gelical only  in  name  ",  was  a  ''  real  tribunal  of  the 
inquisition  "  and  practiced  "  with  indefatigable 
perseverance  the  system  of  denunciations,  of  suspi- 
cion, of  espionage.  "  Hengstenberg  "'  places  on 
the  same  footting  and  confounds  in  a  same  anathema 


1.  Hengstenberg  was  born  in  1802  at  Frondenberg,  in 
the  county  of  Mark,  and  died  at  Berlin,  in  1869.  Professor 
of  theology  at  Berlin  from  1826,  he  founded  in  1827  the 
Evan°elische    Kirchenzeituns. 


pantheistic  philosophy  and  the  progress  of  the 
cholera,  the  theology  of  sentiment  and  the  rehabili- 
tation of  the  flesh.  "  Finally,  indignation  reaches 
its  acme  :  the  Ei^angelische  Zeitung  of  the  Berlin 
professor  is  compared  to  the  Univers  of  Louis 
Veuillot !  1 

It  is  certain  that  this  orthodox  Lutheran  exegete 
did  not  deal  gently  with  the  theology  of  concihation, 
which  so  gravely  compromised  the  principles  of 
the  faith.  He  even  hailed  with  satisfaction  the 
explosion  of  Strauss's  bomb  in  1835.  It  cleared 
the  atmosphere.  "  Two  nations  ",  he  writes  in 
1836,  "  are  struggling  in  the  womb  of  our  time,  and 
two  only.  They  will  be  ever  more  definitely  oppo- 
sed to  one  another.  Unbelief  will  more  and  more 
cast  off  the  elements  of  faith  to  which  it  still  clings, 
and  faith  will  cast  off  its  elements  of  unbelief.  That 
will  be  an  inestimable  advantage.  Had  the  Time- 
spirit  continued  to  make  concessions,  concessions 
would  constantly  have  been  made  to  it  in  return.  "  - 

But  on  what  may  Protestantism  base  action 
against  incredulity,  when  it  is  the  Word  of  God,  its 
only  foundation,  that  is  under  discussion?  The 
prophecy  of  Hengtenberg  seemed  at  first  to  turn 
out  true;  there  was  a  bold  manifestation  of  radical 
increduhty  and  this  provoked  resistence.  But  the 
resistence  stopped  too  soon  to  end  in  a  complete 
triumph  of  orthodoxy;  the  uncompromising  atti- 
tude of  orthodoxy  did  not  restore  its  dominion  over 


1.  Histoire  des  idees  religieuses  en  Allemagne,  by  F.  LicH- 

TENBERGER,   II,   305   f. 

2.  Schweitzer,  p.  106. 


THE    COMPROMISE    OF    THE    LIBERALS  233 

souls.     We  may  take  Bruno  Bauer  as  a  type  of  the 
radicals. 

As  a  sceptic,  radical  and  imaginative,  Bruno 
Bauer  left  nothing  to  be  desired.  Born  in  1809  at 
Eisenberg,  in  the  duchy  of  Sachsen-Altenburg,  he 
belonged  to  the  Hegelian  "  right.  "  He  was  a 
professor  at  Bonn  when  he  began  to  write.  The 
Life  of  Jesus  by  Strauss  appeared  to  him  a  natural 
starting-point,  because  it  did  away  with  the  need  of 
refuting  Rationalism,  on  the  one  hand,  or  superna- 
turalism  on  the  other.  He  tried  to  carry  criticism 
farther,  and  began  with  the  Fourth  Gospel.  We 
have  seen  that  public,  opinion  had  constrained 
Strauss  to  attenuate  his  attacks  upon  this  Gospel  in 
his  third  edition.  Bauer  took  the  offensive  once 
more;  he  saw  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  only  a  work  of 
literature,  a  manifestation  of  Christian  art  on  the 
part  of  a  man  who  had  deep  reUgious  and  intellec- 
tual insight  and  determined  purpose,  but  who  was 
unconcerned  about  history.  And  how  will  the 
first  three  Gospels  fare?  Had  they  simply  regis- 
tered tradition  as  Strauss  thought?  If  they  had, 
there  remained  for  the  life  of  Jesus  a  historical  basis 
however  shght;  for  tradition  leans  on  facts,  and  m 
this  case  on  facts  which  could  be  set  down  as  suffi- 
ciently astonishing  to  stir  the  popular  imagination 
in  a  most  extraordinary  way.  Bauer  denied  that 
the  first  three  Gospels  recorded  tradition.  He 
denied  that  it  is  even  possible  to  attribute  this 
creative  reflection  which  produced  so  determined 
a  movement  as  Christianity  to  a  mysterious  and  ill- 
defined  entity,  such  as  the  collectivity  to  which 
Strauss  assigned  the  primitive  dogma  and  history. 


In  this  he  agreed  with  Cathohcs;  but  instead  of 
concluding  that  the  Evangehsts  had  seen  the  events 
or  Hstened  to  witnesses,  he  suspected  in  their 
work  an  individual  intention  sufficiently  resolute  to 
dispense  with  the  support  of  facts,  and  he  was 
inclined  to  regard  the  narrative  found  in  the  earlier 
Gospels  as  no  more  trustworthy  than  the  Fourth 
Gospel. 

The  literary  criticism  of  Weisse,  of  which  we 
shall  speak  later  on,  had  given  to  the  Second  Gospel 
the  first  place  in  the  order  of  time.  Since  the  First 
and  Third  Gospels  were  based  on  the  Second,  there 
remained,  Bauer  contended,  only  one  authority 
instead  of  four.  It  was  enough  to  contest  the  histor- 
ical value  of  the  one  witness  to  make  everything 
uncertain.  Strauss  had  shaken  what  may  be 
rightly  called  tradition;  Bauer  did  not  believe  in 
Strauss' s  creative  tradition.  What  now  can  be 
suggested?  A  writer  who  perhaps  created  entirely 
the  personage  of  the  Messias. 

Bauer  maintained  that  the  expectation  of  the 
Messias  was  much  less  widespread  than  is  generally 
thought,  at  the  period  when  Christianity  arose. 
He  pointed  out  that  when  Peter  repeats  to  Jesus 
what  the  Galileans  think  of  him,  ^  no  one  had  had 
any  idea  that  He  might  be  the  Messias.  The  mo- 
ment when  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  identified  with 
the  Messias,  the  Christian  community  came  into 
existence.  This  identification  may  be  attributed 
to  a  writer. 

Strauss  is  now  far  outstripped,  and  Bauer  takes 

1.  Mk.  viii,  28. 


THE    COMPROMISE    OF    THE    LIBERALS  235 

satisfaction  in  comparing  him  to  Hengstenberg. 
They  do  not  differ  so  very  much  !  "  For  Hengsten- 
berg the  whole  Hfe  of  Jesus  is  the  Hving  embodi-, 
ment  of  the  Old  Testament  picture  of  the  Messiah; 
Strauss,  a  less  reverent  counterpart  of  Hengtenberg, 
made  the  image  of  the  Messiah  into  a  mask  which 
Jesus  Himself  w^as  obliged  to  assume,  and  which 
legend  afterwards  substituted  for  His  real  fea- 
tures 1.  "  In  his  first  works  Bauer  still  admitted 
a  fascinating  personality,  which  the  Second  Gospel 
had  represented  as  the  Messias,  before  the  Fourth 
transformed  it  into  the  Logos.  >  Later,  this  per- , 
sonality  became  indistinct  in  the  mists  of  doubt. 

But  the  first  manner  was  already  too  radical  for 
Protestant  Germany.  Bauer  was  deprived  of  his 
permission  to  teach  in  March,  1842.  His  anger  broke 
forth  in  a  work  entitled  "  Christianity  Exposed,  " 
which  was  destroyed  before  being  put  on  sale.  He 
then  interrupted  his  Scripture  studies  and  turned 
his  attention  to  the  history  of  France  and  Germany 
from  the  end  of  XVIII  century.  When  he  came 
back  to  the  Gospel,  in  1850,  he  laid  more  stress  on 
doubts  already  expressed  about  the  existence  of 
Jesus,  and  placed  himself  at  the  extreme  ''  left  "  of 
the  Tubingen  school  by  denying  the  authenticity  of 
the  four  great  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  Finally,  he 
felt  called  on  to  expound  his  own  system.  The 
title  of  the  work  is  significant  :  "  Christ  and  the 
Caesars  :  The  origin  of  Christianity  from  Graeco- 
Roman  Civilization.  "  Bauer  had  traveled  far 
since  the  time  when  he  thought  to  save  the  honor 


1.  Schweitzer,  p.  143.  i 


of  Jesus  by  reconstructing  His  true  history.  His 
disdain  for  theologians,  which  went  to  the  extent 
of  a  pathological  delirium,  has  turned  into  hatred 
of  Christianity  and  of  the  Romano-Judsean  idol 
which  it  adored  as  its  Founder.  This  religion  of 
resignation,  of  renunciation,  of  flight  from  the 
world,  could  have  come  into  existence  only  at  a 
time  when  the  individual  felt  himself  crushed  by 
an  immense  organism,  such  as  was  the  Roman 
Empire.  Seneca,  in  part  won  over  by  this  passive 
fanaticism,  tried  to  give  it  effectual  influence  by 
taking  control  of  the  government.  The  discou"- 
agement  of  the  Stoics,  in  which  there  was  mingled  a 
mysticism  inherited  from  Plato,  put  them  upon 
their  way  to  the  sad  religion  which  is  attributed  to 
the  Gospel  which  came  from  Judsea.  And,  in  part, 
Judea  despoiled  of  its  national  life  by  the  taking 
of  Jerusalem,  experienced  the  same  feeling  of 
oppression.  Josephus  the  historian  is  the  counter- 
part of  Seneca.  Philo  of  Alexandria  had  prepared 
the  ground;  his  "  Therapeutee  "  ^  were  forerun- 
ners of  the  Christian  communities.  The  moral 
soul  came  from  Rome;  Judaea  furnished  the 
skeleton.  Literature  took  about  fifty  years  to 
construct  the  historical  framework  of  the  new 
faith. 

More  or  less  conformable  to  the  facts,  —  and 


I.  Since  St.  Jerome's  time  the  question  has  been  discussed 
wliether  the  groups  whose  observances  Philo  has  described 
in  his  De  Vita  Contemplativa  are  a  society  of  Jewish  monks 
like  the  Essenes,  or  precursors  of  the  Christian  monks  who 
later  peopled  the  Egyptian  desert.  It  may  be  that  the 
description  of  the  writer  is  largely  fictitious.  : 


THE    COMPROMISE    OF    THE    LIBERALS  237 

there  is  not  one  of  them  that  is  recognized  as  soUd, 
even  the  existence  of  Jesus,  —  this  pretended  his- 
tory had  no  longer  any  interest  for  the  man  of  the 
XIX  century,  which  conceived  otherwise  of  reh- 
gion.  The  personal  conscience  placed  in  presence 
of  the  w^orld,  no  longer  tried  to  dominate  it  by 
contempt,  but  to  penetrate  it  and  to  ennoble  it. 
It  is  doubtless  to  inaugurate  this  religion  that 
Bruno  Bauer,  a  fierce  radical  in  exegesis,  fought  in 
the  ranks  of  the  Prussian  Conservatives  until  his 
death  in  1882.  i 


II 

A  German  Via  Media. 

You  are  astonished,  Gentlemen,  that  I  have 
given  so  much  time  to  the  exposition  of  opinions  so 
extravagant  and  with  no  support  in  the  texts. 

The  system  of  Bauer  was  too  much  like  a  novel 
to  inspire  confidence.  But  his  criticism  has  not 
been  without  influence.  And  it  was  necessary  to 
know  the  excesses  of  scepticism  to  appreciate  the 

1 .  This  analysis  of  the  ideas  of  Bruno  Bauer  is  taken  from 
the  impartial  and  nevertheless  rather  sympathetic  study 
of  Mr.  Schweitzer,  pp.  137-160.  These  are  the  works  to 
which  he  refers  :  "  Criticism  of  the  Gospel  History  ",  Bre- 
men, 1840;  "  Criticism  of  the  Gospel  History  of  the  Syn- 
optics ",  3  vols.,  Leipsig,  1841,  1842;  "  Criticism  of  the 
Gospels  ",  2  vols.,  Berlin,  1850-1851;  "  Criticism  of  Acts  ", 
1850;  "  Criticism  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  ",  Berlin,  1850- 
1852;  "  PhJlo,  Strauss,  Renan,  and  Primitive  Christianity  " 
Berlin,  1874;  "  Christ  and  the  Csesars.  The  Origin  of 
Christianity  from  Gra?co-Roman  Civilization  '",  Berlin,  1877. 


238  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

bearing  of  the  compromise  which  was  to  prevail. 

Orthodox  Lutheran  theology  has  always  had, 
and  still  has,  erudite  partisans,  though  their 
influence,  outside  of  the  University  of  Erlangen  of 
which  Theodore  Zahn  is  the  glory,  is  felt  rather  by 
the  pastors  than  by  university  students. 

Between  this  orthodoxy  and  radicalism  the 
greater  part  of  theologians  and  exegetes  have 
endeavored  to  follow  a  sort  of  concihation  theology. 
Revelation  is  always  respectfully  treated  by  them, 
spoken  of  in  fact  as  the  source  of  religious  know- 
ledge; but  it  is  almost  confounded  with  reason. 
Church  and  State  may  live  peacefully  together; 
Rothe  would  even  persuade  the  Church  to  fuse 
insensibly  with  the  State.  The  task  of  reconciling 
pantheism  with  the  transcendent  nature  of  God 
does  not  dishearten  them.  It  does  not  seem  to 
M.  Lichtenberger  that  there  is  any  reason  to  choose 
between  the  two  concepts  :  "  If  God  is  a  personal 
being  distinct  from  the  world,  such  as  religious 
sentiment  requires,  He  has  an  indelibly  transcen- 
dent character.  And  nevertheless  God  is  imma- 
nent in  the  world,  as  science  demands.  "  The 
conciliation  is  difficult;  however,  the  two  concep- 
tions are  not  mutually  exclusive.  ^ 

This  convinced  adept  of  the  Conciliation  The- 
ology confesses  that  it  no  longer  adheres  to  the  form 
given  it  by  Schleiermacher  whose  principle  is  thus 
enunciated  :  "  To  explain  history  in  the  light  of 
the  religious  conscience,  and  the  rehgious  conscience 
in  the  light  of  history,  this  is  what  the  Conciliation 

1.  Histoire  des  idees  religieuses  en  Allemagne,  III,  215. 


V 


THE    COMPROMISE    OF    THE    LIBERALS  239 

School  proposes.  "  ^  It  was  objected  to  this 
program  that  the  rehgious  conscience  may  help  to 
understand  the  texts,  but  it  has  no  right  to  impose 
itself  upon  history.  The  case  of  Schleiermacher 
who  started  from  a  personal  view  of  the  Christ  to 
write  his  Life  of  Jesus,  should  not  be  set  up  as  a 
principle.  The  appeal  must  be  made  to  history 
only.  But  none  of  the  conciliationists  have  been 
able  to  escape  one  settled  idea;  the  person  of  Christ 
must  have  a  "  normative  character  "  for  the  relig- 
ious conscience;  to  recognize  this  is  doubtless 
the  least  professors  of  theology  appointed  by  the 
Protestant  Evangelical  State  can  be  expected  to 
do.  In  dogmatic  theolog\",  certain  barriers  long 
continued  between  the  Liberal  school  and  the  so- 
called  Conciliation  school.  In  exegesis  there  w^as 
only  one  school,  w-hich  we  may  call  Liberal.  In  it 
there  have  been  divergent  shades  of  opinion;  but 
care  has  always  been  taken  to  avoid  the  confusion 
willed  by  Schleiermacher.  The  Rationalist  expla- 
nation, officially  set  aside,  had  only  changed  its 
method,  and  the  supernatural  continued  to  be 
relegated  to  the  scrap-heap.  Liberals,  however, 
avoided  saying  so  too  openly.  They  wished  before 
all  to  trace  a  historical  image  of  Christ.  In  Him,  it 
was  recognized,  there  appeared  the  very  genius  of 
religion,  whatever  might  be  thought  of  his  myste- 
rious personahty.  Each  one  thought  as  he  liked 
about  this  personality. 

In  speaking  of  the  compromise  of  the  Liberals, 
we  are  not  speaking,  then,  of  a  philosophico-relig- 

1.  Op.  I.,  Ill,  213. 

16 


240  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANIXY 

ious  synthesis.  It  even  seems  that  henceforth 
exegesis  will  be  almost  independent  of  philosophy. 
Schenkel,  who  was  suspected  of  heresy,  had  begun 
by  having  Kuno  Fischer  removed  from  Heildelberg 
on  account  of  his  pantheism.  Professor  Harnack 
pronounces  openly  against  that  same  monism. 
Nobody  any  longer  proposes  to  find  in  the  doctrine 
of  Jesus  the  symbolical  form  of  the  religion  of  the 
absolute.  The  disciples  of  Hegel,  divided  into 
''  right  "  and  "  left  "  have  inclined  towards  an 
entire  religious  conservatism  or  towards  pure 
materialism.  What  was  true  in  the  first  half  of 
the  XIX  century  is  no  longer  true  after  1850.  The 
deviations  of  exegesis  sup]^ose  a  common  philo- 
sophy, if  by  that  be  understood  the  denial  of  the 
supernatural  and  of  the  miracle,  together  with  an 
abuse  of  subjectivism,  but  they  are  not  connected 
with  a  particular  philosophy.  The  student  of 
German  exegesis  would  be  better  advised  in  turning 
his  attention  towards  religion  in  Germany. 

Those  who  comment  upon  Scripture  are  profes- 
sors of  the  theological  faculties.  They  do  not 
think  of  breaking  with  their  religious  communities. 
Their  intention  is  rather  to  guide  them  in  what  they 
consider  a  fatal  evolution.  These  bold  thinkers 
become  very  skilful  opportunists.  They  think  as 
they  like,  but  they  instinctively  agree  to  keep  to 
an  exegesis  which  German  Protestantism  can 
digest. 

Between  them  and  the  communities  there  are 
certainly  important  divergencies.  For  the  greater 
number  of  ministers  of  the  Holy  Gospel  have 
preserved  much  more  faith  than  they  in  the  myste- 


THE    COMPROMISE    OF    THE    LIBERALS  241 

ries  of  Christianity.  But  if  critical  science  makes 
the  concession  of  still  using  terms  which  have  not 
the  same  meaning  for  it  and  for  the  general  public, 
the  faithful  and  even  the  pastors  consent  not  to  be 
too  easily  scandalized.  From  time  to  time  they 
protest.  The  case  of  Schenkel  is  sufficiently  signi- 
ficant and  well  brings  out  the  social  and  national 
character  of  the  compromise. 

SchenkePs  way  of  presenting  Jesus  was  not  more 
rash  than  others.  Strauss  has  even  reproached 
him  with  taking  back  with  one  hand  in  favor  of 
faith  what  w^ith  the  other  hand  he  had  conceded  to 
criticism.  He  did  not  disdain  to  use  the  Gospel  of 
St.  John,  to  give  to  the  figure  of  Jesus  depth  and 
sublimity.  If  objection  was  raised  in  the  name  of 
history,  he  answered  with  a  distinction  as  concilia- 
ting as  ever  casuist  has  invented  :  "  Jesus  was  not 
always  thus  in  reality,  but  He  was  so  in  truth.  "  ^ 

But  Schenkel  w^as  no  longer  the  same  man  when 
there  was  question  of  the  autonomy  of  communi- 
ties, the  rights  of  laymen  and  universal  suffrage 
in  the  Church.  He  waged  a  noisy  and  successful 
campaign  which  issued  in  the  reunion  of  an  assem- 
bly for  ecclesiastical  reform  in  1863.  A  Sketch  of 
the  Character  of  Jesus  -  appeared  the  following  year. 
The  author  was  then  a  professor  of  the  University 
and  the  Director  of  the  Seminary  of  Heidelberg. 
In  the  Grand-duchy  of  Baden,  one  hundred  and 
seventeen  clerics  signed  a  protest  declaring  the 
author   unfitted   to   hold   office   as    a   theological 


1.  Schweitzer,  p.  201. 

2.  Das  Charakterhild  Jesu/ Wiesbaden,  1864. 


242  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

teacher  in  the  Baden  Church.  It  was  particularly 
demanded  that  he  be  removed  from  his  post  as 
Director  of  the  Seminary.  A  storm  broke  out 
all  over  Germany.  It  gradually  subsided,  after 
Schenkel  had  pointed  out  that  he  had  only  attempt- 
ed to  set  forth  one  side  of  the  truth.  He  had 
related  the  life  of  the  Christ  of  history,  any  one 
was  free  to  form  his  own  conception  of  Christ 
according  to  his  faith.  The  insurgency  of  the 
cbrical  defender  of  the  rights  of  the  laity  could  not 
be  punished  in  the  exegete. 

This  was,  according  to  Mr.  Schweitzer,  the  last 
sensational  agitation  of  orthodoxy.  There  were 
other  protests,  however,  and  Professor  Harnack  did 
not  at  first  escape  irritated  manifestations  of  disap- 
proval on  the  part  of  the  pastors.  But  the  orthodox 
have  given  up  hope  of  preventing  liberal  professors 
from  teaching  in  the  universities.  Orthodoxy  is 
gliding  insensibly  into  the  ways  opened  up  to  it  by 
criticism.  It  is  thus  that  harmony,  if  not  intellec- 
tual unity,  is  maintained  between  the  exegesis  of 
the  theological  faculties  and  pastoral  homilies. 
Accord  is  kept  up ;  the  embarassment  which  results 
from  interference  is  avoided.  H.  Julius  Holtzmann 
was  able  to  state  recently  as  a  point  gained  by 
criticism  that  "  no  Protestant  theologian  of  note 
any  longer  professes  the  doctrine  of  the  symbols  in 
regard  to  the  two  natures  of  Christ.  "  ^  It  would 
be  unjust  to  see  in  this  attitude  deliberate  hypo- 
crisy.    The  professors  of  theology  are  not  sceptics 


1.  Das  messianische  Bewusstsein  Jesu  (The  Messianic  Con- 
science of  Jesus),  p.  100  (1907)4 


THE    COMPROMISE    OF    THE    LIBERALS  243 

who  hide  their  play.  Their  situation  requires 
nothing  more  than  what  they  do,  in  deahng  with 
a  national  religion  the  tenets  of  which  are  so  ill- 
defined.  They  fulfdl,  most  of  the  time  with  inde- 
fatigable industry,  the  task  which  the  State  has 
confided  to  them. 

And  why  may  we  not  admit  that  these  m.tn, 
who  live  in  such  constant  contact  with  the  words 
of  God,  come  under  their  influence?  Could  they 
be  insensible  to  the  pure  light  which  emanates 
from  the  Gospel,  to  the  ardor  of  a  St.  Paul,  to  the 
ever  repeated  call  of  the  Bible  to  moral  perfection? 
In  any  case,  as  Protestants  by  birth  and  education, 
especially  as  Germans,  they  would  avoid  severing 
the  bond  between  modern  Protestantism  and  the 
Bible.  Already  the  union  in  Prussia  of  the  Luther- 
ans and  the  reformed  tended  to  the  formation  of  a 
German  Church.  If  those  who  form  this  combina- 
tion no  longer  seek  redemption  in  the  faith  of 
Christ,  Son  of  God,  equal  to  His  Father,  they  wish 
to  know  the  life  of  Jesus,  who  remains  their  model, 
and  they  express  a  desire  for  a  new  Gospel  according 
to  the  Liberals. 

It  is  about  1860  that  this  conception  was  reached, 
and  that  the  compromise  v/as  arrived  at,  almost 
instinctively.  The  year  1864,  that  of  the  Schcnkel 
case,  marks  one  precise  da,te,  for  it  was  the  year  of 
the  publication,  delayed  until  then,  of  Schleierma- 
cher's  Life  of  Jesus,  and  of  Strauss'  second  Life  of 
Jesus,  addressed  to  the  German  people.  Nothing 
better  shows  than  does  this  latter  work  the  tendency 
to  come  to  an  agreement  on  a  portrait  of  Jesus  that 
would  suit  everybody;  the  former  radical,  who  had 


244  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

remained  isolated  with  his  extravagant  theses,  had 
softened  down  to  the  point  of  simply  adding  another 
number  to  the  rich  collection  of  the  Liberal 
school.  ^ 

It  remains  to  say  how  this  school  has  classed  the 
documents  and  how  it  has  used  them. 


Ill 
Liberal  Criticism  of  the  Gospels. 

The  classification  of  documents  belongs  to  literary 
criticism.  Strauss  had,  in  his  first  Life  of  Jesus, 
constantly  opposed  the  Fourth  Gospel  to  the  three 
first.  If  he  had  partially  retracted  in  his  third 
edition,  it  was,  he  afterwards  said,  the  result  of  a 
momentary  aberration.  And  it  is  precisely  on 
this  point  that  his  study  was  regarded  as  decisive. 
The  three  first  Gospels  are  called  synoptic,  because 
their  narratives  follow  the  same  lines  so  closely 
that  they  can  be  arranged  side  by  side  in  three  paral 
lei  columns.  The  order  is  not  always  the  same,  but, 
save  what  St.  Matthew  has  in  addition  to  the  nar- 
rative of  St.  Mark  and  what  St.  Luke  has  more  or 
less  than  the  two  others,  the  same  events  in  the 
same  perspective  are  related  by  all  three.  On 
reading  them,  one  would  say  that  the  ministry  of 
Jesus  took  place  in  Galilee  and  that  He   came  to 

1.  This  is  true  especially  of  the  portrait  of  Christ,  for 
Strauss  would  not  give  up  the  notion  that  St.  Mark's  Gospel 
is  dependent  on  those  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke. 


THE    COMPROMISE    OF    THE    LIBERALS  245 

Jerusalem  only  to  die  there.  At  first  sight,  it 
would  seem  that  the  whole  ministry  might  have 
occupied  no  more  than  a  year. 

You  know  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  brings  Jesus 
to  Jerusalem  in  the  beginning  of  His  preaching.  It 
is  at  this  time  that  it  places  the  driving  out  of  the 
Temple  vendors;  and  it  brings  Him  back  to  Jeru- 
salem for  certain  Jewish  festivals.  According  to 
this  account,  the  ministry  would  have  lasted  at 
least  two  years  and  a  half.  In  this  frame  are 
placed  events  which  are  ordinarily  not  the  same  as 
those  of  the  synoptics  ^.  To  these  differences  in 
the  narratives,  correspond  differences  in  the  way  of 
speaking  about  Jesus  and  especially  in  the  way  of 
making  Him  speak.  The  peculiarities  of  St.  John 
in  the  presentation  of  the  doctrine  and  of  the  person 
of  the  Savior  have  always  been  remarked;  Julian 
the  Apostate  held  that  John  was  the  first  to  affirm 
that  Jesus  was  God.  In  the  interest  of  clearness 
I  have  had  to  recall  these  points  which  are  w^ell 
known  to  you;  Mgr.  BatifTol  set  them  forth  here  in 
the  Catholic  Institute  in  the  year  1897,  with  precise 
details  which  I  may  pass  over  in  silence.  ^ 

The  older  exegesis  put  the  four  Gospels  on 
exactly  the  same  footing,  both  as  witnesses  to  the 
facts  and  as  echoes  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  The 
Rationalists  had  preferred  the  Gospel  of  St.  John, 


1.  The  four  Gospels  have  in  common  the  baptism  of  Jesus 
and  the  multiplication  of  the  loaves;  they  meet  again  at 
the  P.assion,  but  in  his  account  of  this  St.  John  follows  his 
own  way,  somewhat  different  from  that  of  the  others. 

2.  Six  legons  sur  les  £i>angiles,  10th.  ed.  in  1907,  Paris, 
Gabalda. 


246  THE    MEA]SI>*G    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

because  it  contains  fewer  miracles.  Schleiermacher 
flattered  himself  that  he  had  drawn  from  his  own 
conscience  a  wholly  divine  image  of  Jesus;  having, 
doubtless,  drawn  it  from  St.  John,  he  found  it  again 
in  his  Gospel;  he  thought,  too,  that  his  miracles  had 
a  more  far-reaching  significance  as  symbols. 

After  Strauss,  as  we  have  already  said,  the 
balance  inclines  decidedly  towards  the  synoptics. 
If  one  had  simply  examined  which  of  the  four 
Gospels  presents  itself  as  the  narrative  of  an  eye- 
witness, gives  most  attentioR  to  the  distinction  of 
the  events  according  to  time  and  place,  one  could 
not  hesitate  to  choose  the  Fourth  Gospel.  But 
could  one  treat  its  author  as  a  well-beloved  disciple 
who  had  seen  his  Master  at  work,  and  then  main- 
tain that  he  had  not  understood  Him?  Renan 
attempted  to  do  so,  but  German  criticism  was,  it 
seems,  more  clear-sighted  in  its  negations  and 
more  attentive  in  preparing  its  own  defense.  The 
principle  being  determined  that  Jesus  became  God 
only  in  the  course  of  time,  gradually,  as  His  image 
grew  upon  the  souls  of  men,  it  became  impossible 
to  admit  that  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  had 
accompanied  Jesus  upon  the  roads  of  Galilee  with 
His  apostles.  Critics  affected,  then,  to  draw 
nothing  about  the  life  of  Jesus  from  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  They  were  not,  however,  always  consis- 
tent in  this  attitude,  especially  at  first;  they  did 
borrow  from  it  certain  traits  which  seemed  to  them 
to  bring  out  more  clearly  the  portrait  traced  by  the 
synoptics  and  to  add  to  its  expressiveness. 

Consequently,  the  critic  must  take  his  stand  upon 
the  three  first  Gospels.     But  could  he  even  do  this? 


THE    COMPROMISE    OF    THE    LIBERALS  247 

What  was  their  historical  value?  Had  their 
authors  even  the  intention  to  give  an  historical 
narration?  They  seemed  to  confirm  one  another 
substantially,  but  they  did  not  harmonize  as 
regards  the  order  of  the  events.  How  explain  the 
agreement  and  the  disagreement? 

Gieseler  had  answered  by  the  hypothesis  of  the 
primitive  catechesis.  ^  Do  not  confound  it  with 
the  interpretation  of  Strauss  in  which  the  com- 
munity creates  the  myth.  The  catechesis,  or  the 
preparation  for  baptism,  only  transmits  teaching. 
The  Gospel  is  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation.  It 
must  be  spread.  The  Apostles  had  spread  it  by 
proclaiming,  in  public  and  in  private,  that  to  be 
saved  one  must  beheve  in  Jesus,  who  preached  the 
kingdom  of  God,  suffered,  and  rose  from  the  dead. 

The  great  means  to  convert  souls  was  to  repro- 
duce for  the  new  disciples  the  preaching  v>^hich  had 
converted  the  first.  The  same  things  were  repeat- 
ed, in  about  the  same  terms.  When  it  was  resol- 
ved to  write  down  what  had  been  said,  the  narra- 
tives had  already  assumed  a  certain  definite  form. 
So  much  for  the  resemblances  of  the  Synopics. 
Their  differences  w^ere  due  to  the  individual  writers, 
who  arranged  this  traditional  matter,  each  according 
to  his  purpose  and  temperament. 

This  still  appears  the  most  simple  explanation  to 
respectable   authorities.   ^    That  this   early   cate- 


1.  Historisch-kritischer  Versuch  fiber  die  Entstehung  der 
Evangelien  (in  the  Analekien  of  Keil  et  Tszchirner,  t.  Ill,  in 
1816). 

2.  Levesque,  Nos  quatre  l^vangiles  (Our  four  Gospels) 
(1917). 


248  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

chesis  existed  is  not  an  hypothesis,  but  a  fact  which 
no  one  thinks  of  denying.  What  is  hypothetic, 
is  the  explanation  of  the  pecuharities  of  the  written 
Gospel  by  the  modalities  of  oral  teaching;  it  is 
doubted  whether  it  produced  the  appearance  of  re- 
lationship between  the  Synoptics. 

Their  resemblances  are  not  confined  to  words. 
It  would  be  strange,  indeed,  that  three  writers 
should  have  used  exactly  the  same  words  in  cases 
where  it  would  have  been  so  easy  to  vary  them; 
variations  multiply  in  a  most  natural  way  when 
writers  follow  their  own  bent.  But  one  might 
admit  that  the  catechists  scrupled  to  change  the 
words  for  fear  of  altering  the  substance.  It  is 
possible,  though  scarcely  probable.  It  is  less 
likely  that  the  narratives  automatically,  so  to 
speak,  grouped  themselves  into  parallel  series. 
Words,  especially  if  they  are  picturesque,  or  if 
they  refer  to  an  unwonted  event,  stick  to  the 
memory.  But  the  memory  retains  much  less  easily 
the  order  of  events,  when  there  is  no  connection 
between  them.  With  an  ordinarily  good  memory, 
one  might  without  much  difficulty  learn  to  relate 
each  one  of  the  incidents  of  the  Book  of  Judges. 
But  it  would  tax  the  very  best  of  memories  to  learn 
the  chronological  order  of  the  Judges.  Now  the 
divergences  between  the  synoptics  prove  clearly 
that  the  primitive  catechesis  had  made  no  great 
effort  to  constitute  a  chronological  history  of  Jesus. 
That  was  not  its  task.  At  most  one  might  unders- 
tand that  certain  categories  of  facts  were  formed  : 
miracles,  parables,  teaching  of  the  disciples.  But 
this  is  not  the  most  ordinary  case.     It  seems  that 


THE    COMPROMISE    OF    THE    LIBERALS  249 

the  series  were  formed  only  when  a  writer  sketched 
a  hfe  of  Jesus;  if  the  order  of  events  is  about  the 
same  in  the  three  synoptics,  it  is  because  two  of 
them  accepted  the  first  sketch.  There  has  been, 
then,  a  certain  Hterary  dependence  between  the 
first  three  evangeUsts.  t 

Comparing  the  synoptics  with  one  another, 
Christian  Hermann  Weisse  maintained,  as  early 
as  in  1838,  in  his  "Critical  and  Philosophical  Study 
of  the  Gospel  History,  "  ^  the  priority  of  St.  Mark's 
Gospel.  He  pointed  out  that  in  those  parts  which 
the  three  Gospels  have  in  common,  the  agreement 
of  the  other  two  is  mediated  through  Mark ;  that  in 
those  parts  which  Matthew  and  Luke  have  in 
common  with  Mark  they  resemble  each  other 
more,  both  in  wording  and  order,  than  they  do  in 
the  sections  which  they  have  not  in  common  with 
Mark.  What  does  this  mean  but  that  Mark  is  the 
reason  of  the  existence  of  the  resemblances  between 
the  other  two,  that  they  used  him?  Mark  is  then 
the  first  of  the  three. 

Another  argument  for  the  priority  of  Mark  is 
found  in  the  fact  that  it  is  he  who  relates  the 
events  with  greatest  detail,  and  that  the  graphic 
touches  of  this  Gospel  are  such  as  most  naturally 
reflect  the  first  impressions  of  those  who  were 
present  when  the  events  occurred.  It  is,  indeed, 
possible  for  an  able  writer  to  see  with  the  imagi- 
nation more  vividly  and  realistically  than  others 


1.  Die  Evangelische  Gesckichte,  kritisch  und  philosophisch 
hearheitet,  Leipzig,  1838.  —  Die  E van gelienf rage  in  ihrem 
gegenwdrtigen  Stadium,  Leipzig,  1856. 


250  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

see  with  their  eyes  and  consequently  to  give  a 
life-like  account  of  imaginary  events,  v^hile  the 
narrative  of  an  eye-witness  may  fail  to  convey  any 
definite  impression  of  what  took  place.  But  Mark 
was  not  enough  of  a  literary  man  to  have  passed  oif 
his  inventions  for  reality  by  clever  writing.  He 
makes  his  reader  assist  at  the  scenes  he  describes 
because  their  traits  are  drawn  according  to  nature. 

He  does  not  claim  to  be  an  eye-witness;  but  he 
speaks  so  much  about  Peter  that  he  indicates  him 
as  the  source  of  his  information.  We  are  then  in 
contact  with  the  testimony  of  the  faithful  friend 
of  Jesus.  We  can  accept  this  indication,  and  in 
spite  of  Strauss,  myths  are  relegated  to  a  very  secon- 
dary place.  Nothing  would  prevent  us  from 
treating  Mark  as  a  historian  if  he  had  complied 
with  that  law  of  history  which  requires  that  events 
be  arranged  according  to  their  order  in  time.  But 
Mark's  chronology  is  elementary,  it  contains  no 
definite  starting  point  and  few  intimations  which 
allow  us  to  measure  intervals ;  and  there  is  no  means 
of  knowing  that  he  always  followed  the  order  of 
time  in  relating  the  incidents  which  he  gives  us. 
Taken  all  in  all,  however,  the  arrangement  of  his 
materials  is  not  devoid  of  likelihood.  His  rudi- 
mentary history  comprises,  like  so  many  other 
dramas  of  real  life,  its  preparation,  its  climax  and 
its  denouement.  It  may,  then,  serve  as  a  basis  for 
the  life  of  Jesus  which  it  is  the  duty  of  Liberal 
criticism  to  write. 

At  the  same  time  another  primitive  foundation 
w^as  recognized.  The  discourses  common  to  St. 
Matthew  and  St.  Luke,  more  developed  in  St.  Mat- 


THE    COMPROMISE    OF    THE    LIBERALS  251 

thew,  are  sufficiently  alike  to  postulate  a  common 
source,  since  the  two  evangelists  are  too  divergent 
to  allow  the  supposition  that  one  borrowed  from 
the  other.  This  primitive  source,  called  the  Logia 
(from  a  wrongly  interpreted  word  of  Papias),  repro- 
duces faithfully  enough  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  at 
least  as  faithfully  as  Xenophon  and  Plato  reproduce 
the  doctrine  of  Socrates.  Besides  these  two  docu- 
ments, Mark  and  the  Logia,  the  elements  proper 
to  St.  Luke  deserve  consideration;  he  must  have 
consulted  persons  acquainted  with  the  facts,  since 
he  affirms  that  he  did  so. 

We  see  that  this  Liberal  criticism  was  inaugurat- 
ing in  its  own  v^ay  a  reaction  against  the  mythical 
interpretation  of  Strauss;  it  refused  even  to  discuss 
the  scepticism  of  Bruno  Bauer.  It  had  settled  upon 
solid  bases  for  the  history  of  Jesus,  and,  despite 
certain  noisy  but  vain  denials,  these  bases,  which 
one  may  say  are  minimum  foundations,  have  not 
been  shaken.  It  is  a  point  to  be  recalled  to  a  cer- 
tain uncompromising  scepticism,  as  ignorant  as  it 
is  radical. 

In  this  rapid  sketch,  I  have  simplified  matters 
excessively.  There  are  many  divergent  opinions 
among  the  Liberal  critics.  The  aberration  which 
I  find  least  excusable,  is  the  fiction  of  a  primitive 
Mark,  obtained  by  the  elimination  of  what  is  not 
utihzed  by  St.  Luke  and  also  by  eliminating  certain 
picturesque  details.  An  example,  chosen  among  a 
hundred  will  enable  you  to  realize  the  lack  of  taste. 
Here  is  the  narrative  of  the  tempest  calmed  in 
Luke  :  "  One  day  Jesus  entered  into  a  boat  with  his 
disciples,  and  he  said  to  them  :  Let  us  go  over  to  the 


252  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

other  side  of  the  lake.  And  they  started.  While 
they  were  sailing,  he  fell  asleep.  There  came  a 
storm  of  wind  upon  the  lake,  and  they  were 
filling  with  water  and  they  were  in  danger.  They 
came  to  him  and  awoke  him  saying  :  Master, 
Master,  we  perish.  But  he  arising  commanded 
the  winds  and  the  waves;  and  they  ceased  and 
there  was  a  calm.  And  he  said  unto  them  :  Where 
is  your  faith?  "  ^ 

Now  this  little  narrative  is  perfectly  clear-cut. 
All  is  said  simply  and  soberly.  There  is  nothing 
more  in  Mark,  nothing  more  except  those  expressive 
touches  which  change  a  good  likeness  into  a  hfe-like 
portrait  :  "  And  he  saith  to  them  that  day,  when 
evening  was  come  -:  Let  us  pass  over  to  the  other 
side.  And  leaving  the  multitude,  they  take  him, 
even  as  he  was,  in  the  boat,  and  there  were  other 
boats  with  him.  And  there  arose  a  great  storm  of 
wind,  and  the  waves  beat  into  the  boat,  so  that  the 
boat  was  already  filled.  And  he  was  in  the  hinder 
part  of  the  boat,  sleeping  upon  the  cushion.  And 
they  awake  him  and  say  to  him  :  Master  does  it  not 
concern  thee  that  we  perish?  And  rising  up  he 
commanded  the  wind  and  said  to  the  sea  :  Silence ! 
be  still !  And  the  wind  ceased  and  there  was  made 
a  great  calm.  And  he  said  to  them  :  Why  are  you 
fearful?  have  you  not  faith  yet?  "  ^ 

You  have  noticed  these  details  :  That  day,  of  the 
parable  of  the  sower;  it  was  evening;  there  were 
other  boats;  they  took  Jesus  as  He  was,  without 


1.  Lk.  VIII,  22-25. 

2.  Mk.  VIII,  35-40. 


THE    COMPROMISE    OF    THE    LIBERALS  253 

organizing  a  caravan;  He  was  at  the  stern,  sleeping 
upon  the  cushion  upon  which  the  steersman  usually 
sat.  These  details  are  useless  to  the  narrative; 
they  are  there  because  they  were  erstwhile  in 
reality.  And  that  familiarity  in  the  appeal  for 
help,  in  the  reproaches  of  the  Master;  that  direct 
word  to  the  wind  and  to  the  sea  1  Will  you  say 
that  Mark  was  the  greater  writer?  But  his  sen- 
tence is  more  broken,  his  style  less  careful.  If  he 
had  been  seeking  for  effect  he  would  have  told  us 
of  the  threatening  waves,  the  whistling  of  the  wind, 
the  horror  of  a  dark  night.  We  have  two  descrip- 
tions of  another  tempest.  One  is  by  Chateau- 
briand, the  second  by  his  servant.  Read  the 
"  Itinerary  "  and  the  story  of  Julien;  you  will 
realize  the  difference  between  a  style  which  owes 
its  picturesqueness  to  the  gifts  of  imagination,  to 
the  delicate  perception  of  the  beautiful  and  the 
horrible,  and  a  style  which  owes  the  same  quality 
to  a  faithful  reproduction  of  details,  clearly  per- 
ceived, though  insignificant,  trivial  or  even  repul- 
sive, like  sea-sickness.  These  details  remained  in 
the  imagination  of  Julien,  and  he  has  expressed 
them  naturally,  in  his  naive  but  sincere  style.  Did 
Chateaubriand  see  what  he  has  expressed  in  his 
graphic,  though  somewhat  affected  way?  It  may 
be  doubted ;  he  may  simply  have  wished  to  write  a 
fine  page.  But  what  reason  could  have  induced 
.Julien  to  tell  of  a  tempest  which  he  had  not  seen? 
The  philologists  who  have  invented  the  primitive 
Mark,  the  Urmarkiis,  were  bookworms;  and  they 
did  not  even  know  how  to  read  books.  Their 
disciples  have  sought  other  reasons  for  attacking 


254  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

the  unity  of  Mark ;  but  the  theory  of  primitive  Mark 
loses  every  day  something  of  its  unjustified  hold 
upon  scholars  of  the  Liberal  school.  And  this 
sound  reaction  of  criticism  has  extended  to  St. 
Luke. 

The  last  chapters  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
have,  as  much  as  the  Second  Gospel,  the  life  and 
naturalness  which  are  apt  to  be  found  in  the  nar- 
rative of  those  who  have  taken  part  in  the  events 
related.  And  the  author  says  "  we,  "  without 
affectation,  because  he  belonged  to  the  party  of  Paul 
and  his  companions.  ^  Criticism  has  bowed  its 
head.  Here  is  a  witness.  Who  was  it?  Why  not 
Luke?  But,  ever  on  its  guard,  criticism,  having 
made  this  concession,  refused  to  go  farther.  This 
"*we  "  of  Luke  which  comes  only  at  the  end  of 
Acts,  characterizes,  it  is  held,  a  writing  inserted  into 
a  later  work.  The  author  of  the  whole  work  of 
Acts,  who  is  likewise  the  author  of  the  Third 
Gospel,  may  have  written  these  books  long  after 
the  composition  of  Luke's  travel-document.  Cri- 
ticism was  at  this  point  when,  recently,  in  a  series 
of  carefully  worked  out  studies,;  ^  Professor  Harnack 
showed  that  the  whole  of  Acts  and  the  Third  Gospel 
came  from  the  same  pen.  This  point  is  solidly 
established. 

When  the  Berlin  critic  adds  that  the  two  books 

1.  The  Wirstiicke  begin  xvi,  10. 

2.  Lukas  der  Arzt,  der  Verfasser  des  dritten  Evangeliums 
und  der  Apostelgeschichte,  Leipzig,  1906.  —  Die  Apostel- 
geschichte,  Leipzig,  1908;  cf.  Revue  hihlique,  1906,  pp.  644 
1!.  and  1908,  pp.  620  fY.  (These  books  are  translated,  Luke 
the  Physician,  the  Author  of  the  Third  Gospel  and  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  and  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles^  Putnam's.) 


THE    COMPROMISE    OF   THE    LIBERALS  255 

were  finished  by  the  year  60,  no  Gathohc  has  a 
right  to  show  himself  more  exacting. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  the  reaction  has  reached 
the  Fourth  Gospel.  It  is  true  that  such  consider- 
able scholars  as  Wellhausen,  ^  Schwartz,  ^  and 
Wendt,  2  have  tried  to  discover  in  it  a  first  and  a 
second  hand ;  but  they  have  no  regard  for  its  histo- 
rical contribution. 

Spitta  *  has  arrived  at  this  same  view  concerning 
a  twofold  layer  in  the  Fourth  Gospel;  but  he  builds 
up  according  to  a  proto-Luke  and  a  proto-John  an 
altogether  arbitrary  history.  The  Fourth  Gospel 
resists  documentary  division.  John  has  not  less 
than  Mark  the  character  of  an  original  and  organic 
writing. 

One  must  then  choose  between  the  whole  and 
nothing.  We  have  always  preferred  the  whole. 
And  though  criticism  is  still  far  from  this  traditional 
position,  it  no  longer  speaks  of  such  late  dates  as 
those  proposed  by  Strauss  and  Baur. 

If,  then,  one  were  to  determine  to-day  that  in 
which  the  "  right  ",  the  extreme  "  right "  if  you  like, 
of  Liberal  exegesis,  is  distinguished  from  Catholic 


1.  J.  Wellhausen,  Erweiterungen  und  Aenderungen  im 
vierten  Evangelium,  Berlin,  1907.  —  Das  Evangelium  Johan- 
nis,  Berlin,  1908. 

2.  E.  Schwartz,  Aporien  im  vierten  Evangelium,  dans  les 
Nachrichten  von  der  Kgl.  Gesellschajt  der  Wissenschajten  zu 
Gottingen,  Philol.  Hist.  Klasse,  Berlin,  1907,  pp.  341-372; 
1908,  pp.  114-188;  497-560. 

3.  Hans  Heinrich  Wendt,  Die  Schichten  im  vierten 
Evangelium,  Gottin^en,  1911. 

4.  Friedrich  Spitta,  Das  Johannesevangelium  als  Quelle 
der  Geschichte  Jesu,  Gottingen,  1910. 

17 


256  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

exegesis  concerning  the  origin  of  the  Gospels,  one 
would  find  that  the  Liberals  are  drawing  nearer  to 
tradition.  For  the  dates  between  60  and  70,  I  see 
no  divergence  between  Mgr  Batiffol  and  Father 
Jacquier  on  one  side,  and  Professor  Harnack  on  the 
other.  Regarding  the  date  of  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
around  100,  a  little  before  or  a  little  after,  everyone 
is  agreed,  from  Father  Cornely  to  Professor  Jiili- 
cher.  And  I  cannot  believe  that  moderate  critics 
of  the  Liberal  "  left  "  will  long  hold  out  for  a  date 
later  than  70,  the  year  of  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, for  the  Synoptics. 

Discussion  is  now  mainly  concerned  with  the 
case  of  St.  Matthew,  the  most  difficult  of  all.  While 
the  Liberals  continue  to  distinguish  a  collection  of 
discourses,  in  Aramaic  or  Greek,  which  would 
have  served  as  a  source  of  the  First  and  Third 
Gospels,  the  Biblical  Commission  refuses  to  give  a 
certificate  of  origin  to  this  collection  of  which  anti- 
quity knew  nothing. 

The  Commission  makes  a  distinction  between  the 
primitive  work  of  the  Apostle  Matthew,  written  in 
Aramaic,  and  the  First  Gospel  in  Greek,  but  it  pro- 
claims the  substantial  identity  of  the  original  text 
and  of  the  translation.  This  allows  one  to  hold, 
however,  that  the  Greek  translator  made  use  of 
the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark,  since  St,  Mark  may  be  older 
than  the  translation.  It  is  the  view  I  take,  pro- 
fitting  by  the  latitude  permitted  by  the  word 
substance.  But  this  is  not  the  question  here.  I 
could  not,  indeed,  put  before  you  the  documentary 
conclusions  of  the  Liberal  school  without  indi- 
cating what  Catholics  think  about  these  matters; 


THE    COMPROMISE    OF    THE    LIBERALS  257 

but  I  have  not  to  discuss  in  detail  these  views  about 
the  basis  of  the  history  of  Jesus.  It  is  this  history 
itself,  according  to  the  Liberals,  which  we  have 
to  analyse,  too  rapidly,  I  am  sorry  to  say. 


IV 

The  Jesus   of  Liberal  Theology. 

I  cannot  think  of  reviewing  with  you  the  works, 
famous  in  Germany,  of  Schenkel,  of  Weizsacker,  ^ 
of  Theodor  Keim,  -  of  Beyschlag,  ^  of  Bernard 
Weiss.  *  I  take  as  a  type  the  writings  of  Heinrich 
Julius. Holtzmann  ^.  He  is  in  about  the  middle  of 
the  school,  between  Bernard  Weiss,  more  tradi- 
tional, and  Keim,  more  Liberal.  His  authority 
rests  upon  considerable  works  :  an  introduction  to 
the    synoptic    Gospels,    a    theology    of   the    New 

1.  Karl  Heinrich  Weizsacker,  Untersuchungen  ilber 
die  evangelische  Geschichte,  ihre  Quellen  und  den  Gang  ihrer 
Entwicklung,  Gotha,  1864. 

2.  Theodor  Keim,  Die  Geschichte  Jesu  von  Nazara,  3  vol., 
Zurich,  1867-1872. 

3.  WiLLiBALD  Beyschlag,  Das  Lehen  Jesu,  in  two  parts, 
prolegomena  and  exposition,  1885-1886. 

4.  Bernhard  Weiss,  Das  Lehen  Jesu,  1  vol.,  1882. 

5.  Heinrich  Julius  Holtzmann,  Die  synoptischen  Evan- 
gelien.  Ihr  Ursprung  und  geschichtlicher  Charakter,  Leipzig, 
1863.  —  Lehrbuch  der  historisch-kritischen  Einleitung  in  das 
Neue  Testament,  several  editions.  —  Lehrbuch  der  neutesta- 
mentlichen  Theologie,  2  vol.,  Friburg  in  B.  and  Leipzig,  1897. 
Several  commentaries  in  the  Hand-Commentar ;  cf.  Revue 
biblique,  1897,  pp.  468  IT. 


258  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

Testament,  several  commentaries.  With  uncom- 
mon diligence  he  has  collected  the  opinions  of 
others,  which  seem  to  form  a  background  to  his 
own.  Less  known  than  Harnack  in  France,  he 
has,  so  to  speak,  fixed  the  position  of  the  Liberal 
school,  the  last  word  of  which  he  had  uttered  before 
the  attacks  of  the  new  critics.  And  Harnack  in 
his  What  is  Christianity?  *  does  but  clothe  the  same 
results  with  oratorical  form.  Holtzmann  has, 
then,  given  definite  shape  to  the  Liberal  theory.  His 
Life  of  Jesus  is,  however,  certainly  not  definitive; 
it  is  already  very  near  being  abandoned  as  an  inte- 
gral and  exclusive  system. 

People  have,  we  were  saying,  brokeji  with  the 
mythological  system.  The  only  myths  to  whicli 
the  Liberals  cling  are  certain  embellishments  of 
legend,  inspired  by  the  Old  Testament,  to  mark  the 
accomplishment  of  prophecies,  and  some  efflores- 
cence of  the  marvelous  about  the  history  of  Jesus, 
such  as  naturally  gathers  about  all  great  men.  The 
Infancy  narratives  of  both  Matthew  and  Luke 
belong  to  this  domain.  They  are  considered  as 
essays  of  the  imagination  to  fill  in  the  void  of  the 
first  years  of  a  brilliant  existence  and  to  find  therein 
anticipations  of  future  glorious  events. 

The  true  history  begins  with  the  Baptism.  And 
at  once  there  arises  the  question  which  dominates 
everything.  Did  Jesus  believe  Himself  the  Messias 
expected  by  the  Jews? 

St.  Matthew  attached  great  importance  to  this 


1.  Adolf  Harnack,  Z)as  Wesen  des  Christentums,  Leipzig, 
1900,  numerous  editions;  cf.  Bevue  biblique, 1901,  pp.  110  IT. 


'  THE    COMPROMISE    OF    THE    LIBERALS  259 

title,  as  giving  Jesus  a  claim  to  the  adhesion  of  His 
countrymen ;  but  it  is  very  distasteful  to  Liberals. 
They  do  not  like  to  think  of  Jesus  as  the  Messias, 
whatever  meaning  may  be  attached  to  the  word. 
There  is,  as  we  said  in  connection  with  Reimarus, 
the  national  and  temporal  Messiahship,  and  the 
Messiahship  which  is  now  called  eschatological, 
that  is  to  say,  the  power  to  come  upon  the  clouds 
to  judge  men.  But  in  either  of  these  senses  it  is 
objectionable.  To  conceive  the  design  to  deliver 
one's  people  is  in  itself  praiseworthy,  but  what 
meaning  could  it  have  for  us?  Is  that  what  Jesus 
sought  to  do?  The  Liberals  rightly  answer  that 
it  is  not.  But  if  Jesus  is  not  an  ambitious  man, 
or  even  a  hero  who  sought  to  realize  national  hopes, 
He  is  not,  on  the  other  hand,  the  enthusiast  who 
would  have  imagined  Himself  commissioned  to 
inaugurate  upon  earth  a  new  world,  to  transform 
human  life  into  a  dream-life  in  a  dream-land  of 
innocence  and  happiness.  Placed  between  two 
equally  chimerical  hopes.  He  purified  both,  endeav- 
oring to  better  men  by  teaching  them  to  love  God 
as  their  Father  and  other  men  as  their  brethren. 
His  Messiahship  is  an  apostolate  of  the  reign  of  God 
such  as  is  within  reach  of  every  man.  The  reign 
of  God,  according  to  Harnack's  description,  is  a 
gift  from  on  high,  and  not  the  product  of  natural 
life;  a  religious  good,  which  must  affect  one's  whole 
existence.  The  fatherhood  of  God  and  the  price 
of  the  soul,  is  the  second  theme  of  Jesus,  a  theme  so 
deep,  so  true,  so  clear  for  the  religious  soul,  that  it 
raises  Christianity  above  other  religions,  makes  of 
it    religion    itself.    Jesus    requires    also    a    higher 


260  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

righteousness,  which  is  not  to  be  placed  in  exterior 
worship  but  in  moral  dispositions,  a  righteousness 
which  reaches  the  bottom  of  the  heart,  where  it  has 
its  root  in  love  and  its  stay  in  humility. 

As  the  Jesus  of  the  Liberals,  however  pure  and 
holy  be  His  religious  genius,  is  only  a  man,  one 
would  be  curious  to  know  at  what  moment  He  ac- 
quired the  conviction  that  His  mission  was  to 
preach  the  spiritual  messianism.  It  was  at  the 
Baptism;  for  it  was  then  that  Jesus  acquired 
consciousness  of  his  dignity  of  Son  of  God,  then  that 
He  understood  that  God  was  a  Father  and  His 
Father,  and  that  He  was  His  Son.  Here,  then, 
Jesus  is  invested  with  His  mission  by  His  conscious- 
ness. He  preaches  that  reign  of  God  which  is  inner 
conversion,  convinced  that  He  thus  plays  the  part 
of  Messias.  But  how  different  the  impulses  which 
this  title  arouses  in  the  multitude,  impatient  to 
salute  the  King-Messias,  son  of  David  1  This 
accounts  for  the  Master's  care  to  avoid  all  revolu- 
tionary agitation.  He  veiled  his  dignity,  even  from 
His  disciples. 

It  is  only  at  Gaesarea  of  Philip  that  He  accepted 
their  homages,  because  He  had  insensibly  led  them 
to  a  higher  conception  of  the  reign  of  God  and  of 
the  Messias.  The  confession  of  Peter  has,  in  the 
Liberal  history  of  Jesus,  a  sovereign  importance. 
It  is  the  climax  of  His  whole  career.  Henceforth 
His  messianic  ideal  dominates  Him  more  and  more, 
but  He  understands  at  the  same  time  that  the 
multitude  will  not  accept  it.  Understanding 
nothing  of  a  spiritual  transformation,  the  crowds, 
for  a  moment  over-excited,   abandon  this  lowly 


'  THE    COMPROMISE    OF    THE    LIBERALS  261 

preacher  who  has  not  been  able  to  meet  their 
enthusiastic  expectations.  Jesus  now  knows  that 
His  enterprise  will  succeed  only  through  suffering 
knd  death.  He  tries  to  bring  His  disciples  to  this 
higher  degree  of  His  divine  vocation;  He  leads  them 
to  Jerusalem  where  the  solution  of  God  is  to  inter- 
vene. What  solution  ?  We  are  here  at  the  delicate 
point  where  it  is  necessary  to  define  the  sentiments 
of  Jesus  in  regard  to  eschatological  dreams. 

Is  it  likely  that  a  sage  like  Jesus,  so  humble  and 
religious,  who  had  refused  to  encourage  the  tem- 
poral hopes  of  the  Jews,  should  have  leaned  at  the 
end  towards  that  other  messianism,  still  more 
chimerical,  which  awaited  salvation  from  a  cat- 
astrophic intervention  of  God?  Did  He  think 
that  if  He,  the  Messias,  could  inaugurate  His  reign 
only  by  His  death,  the  entire  wicked  world  was  to 
disappear  with  Him  and  to  be  replaced  immediately 
on  earth  by  a  wholly  divine  world?  The  Liberal 
school  does  not  think  so,  and  it  is  here  that  it  is 
distinguished  from  the  school  of  the  Eschatologists. 
In  the  beginning,  without  overmuch  exegetical 
study,  the  Liberals  eliminated  the  embarrassing 
texts  by  interpreting  them  in  a  spiritual  sense. 
But  when  the  battle  was  engaged  with  the  new 
adversaries,  the  texts  had  to  be  discussed  closely 
and  their  meaning  defined  exactly.  The  discussion 
revolves  chiefly  around  the  title  of  Son  of  Man. 
The  Liberals  ridded  themselves  of  the  title  of  Son  of 
God  by  interpreting  it  in  the  most  trivial  way,  but 
what  was  to  be  done  with  the  title  of  Son  of  man 
which  Jesus  so  frequently  applied  to  Himself,  and 
which   must  reveal   the   secret   of   His   messianic 


262  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

consciousness  ?  We  read  almost  in  the  same  terms 
in  the  three  synoptics  that  when  the  High  Priest 
asked  Jesus  :  "  Art  thou  the  Christ,  the  son  of  the 
blessed  (God)?  "  Jesus  answered  :  "  I  am.  And 
you  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  sitting  on  the  right 
hand  of  the  Power,  and  coming  with  the  clouds  of 
heaven.  "  ^  Does  this  not  mean  :  "  I  am  the 
Messias  foretold  by  Daniel,  a  Messias  who  is  to 
reign  near  God  and  'come  to  judge  the  world?  " 

The  Liberals  are  embarrassed  by  this  text. 
Many,  and  among  them  Holtzmann  and  Harnack, 
concede  that  Jesus  believed  in  His  reign  near  God, 
but  without  imagining  that  by  reason  of  this  reign 
the  human  race  was  to  be  transformed  upon  earth. 

Others  fear  that  this  concession  will  draw  them 
too  far,  and  they  see  no  necessity  for  it.  Adalbert 
Merx,  for  instance,  would  not  grant  that  Jesua 
claimed  to  be  the  Messias.^  According  to  Wellhaus- 
en,  Peter  and  the  people  believed  Jesus  to  be  the 
Messias;  He  let  them  think  so,  but  we  do  not  know 
exactly  what  was  His  own  thought.  This  eminent 
orientahst  has  affirmed  with  all  the  weight  of  his 
thorough  knowledge  of  Aramaic,  the  language  spo- 
ken by  Jesus,  that  son  of  man  or  barnacha  signifies 
simply  man,  that  this  term  becomes  in  the  Gospel 

1.  Mc.  XIV,  6,1  s. 

2.  Die  vier  kanonischen  Evangelien  nach  ihrem  dltesten- 
hekannten  Texte,  Uebersetzung  und  Erlauterung  der  syrischen 
im  Sinaikloster  gefundenen  Palimpsesthandschrift,  Transla- 
tion, Berlin,  1897;  Explanations  on  Mark  et  Luke,  Berlin, 
1905,  p.  82  et  p.  161.  As  the  German  title  indicates,  Merx 
had  the  happy  thought  to  translate  the  Syriac  Ms.  found  at 
Sinai  by  Mrs.  Lewis,  but  also  the  aberration  to  regard  this 
text  as  nearer  than  any  other  to  the  originals. 


THE    COMPROMISE    OF    THE    LIBERALS  263 

almost  synonymous  with  "  I  who  speak  to  you.  "  ^ 
Despite  these  fluctuations  and  these  fissures,  the 
Liberal  school  succeeded  in  preserving  for  over  half 
a  century  a  historical  residue  of  the  Gospel.  The 
image  which  it  retained  of  Christ  satisfied  the  gene- 
ral desire  not  to  break  with  Him,  and  it  obliged 
nobody  to  render  to  Him  any  other  worship  than 
that  rendered  to  great  men.  Alexander  Severus 
had  given  a  place  to  Jesus  alongside  of  Orpheus  and 
the  heroes  in  his  domestic  chapel;  Liberal  Protes- 
tantism, more  respectful,  set  Him  apart,  upon  a 
high  pedestal. 

We  need  not  hesitate  to  say  that  it  was  a  service 
to  exegesis  to  banish  the  interpretation  of  Strauss, 
which  changed  nearly  the  whole  contents  of  the 
Gospels  into  myths,  to  maintain  so  strongly  the 
moral  and  religious  character  of  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  to  place  Him  in  a  sphere  in  which  He  was 
superior  to  the  prejudices  of  His  time  and  to  His 
time  itself  and  in  w^hich  He  prepared  a  real  regene- 
ration of  mankind,  ever  at  the  disposition  of  the 
men  of  the  future.  But  is  this  Jesus,  this  good 
professor  of  moral  theology,  this  respected  president 
of  a  conference  of  pastors,  this  useful  auxiliary  of 
the  State  in  its  endeavor  to  bring  up  German  chil- 
dren along  the  paths  of  virtue,  the  Jesus  of  the 
Gospel?  With  the  Liberal  school  we  will  maintain 
against  the  Eschatologists  that  He  had  the  design 
of  forming  a  spiritual  rehgion.  built  upon  the  foun- 
dations of  Judaism,  but  purer  and  more  full  of  trust 

1.  Einleitung  in  die  drei  ersten  Ei'arigelien,  p.  39;  Berlin, 
1905.  See  for  the  messianic  sense,  Tillmann  (Catholic), 
Der  Menschensohn;  of.  Revue  biblique,  1908,  pp.  280  ss. 


264  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

in  the  Heavenly  Father.  Is  this  all?  Is  this,  even 
for  one  who  leaves  aside  the  question  of  the  divinity 
of  Jesus,  the  impression  conveyed  by  the  Gospels? 
Renan  protested  against  the  Liberal  Christ,  simply 
in  the  name  of  exegesis  and  history.  His  keen 
criticism  of  the  portrait  which  the  German  Liberals 
had  drawn  deserves  to  be  quoted  here  :  "  Strange 
to  say,  it  is  the  Liberal  school  of  theology  which 
proposes  the  most  sceptical  conclusions.  Their 
sensible  apology  of  Christianity  is  doing  away 
with  all  the  historical  circumstances  of  Christianity. 
Miracles,  messianic  prophecies,  erstwhile  the  basis 
of  Christian  apologetics,  have  become  for  it  an 
embarrassment;  it  seeks  to  eliminate  them...  Jesus 
did  not  even  claim  to  work  a  single  miracle;  He  did 
not  consider  Himself  the  Messias...  A  learned 
man  who  has  been  mingled  with  these  discussions, 
recently  wrote  me  :  "  As  formerly  one  must  show 
at  any  cost  that  Jesus  was  God,  to-day  the  theo- 
logical school  has  undertaken  to  prove,  not  only  that 
He  was  nothing  more  than  a  man,  hut  that 
moreover,  He  looked  upon  Himself  as  such.  They 
would  present  Him  as  the  sensible  man,  the 
eminently  practical  man;  they  transform  Him 
after  the  likeness  and  according  to  the  heart  of 
modern  theology.  I  believe  with  you  that  this  is 
not  doing  justice  to  historical  truth,  that  it  is 
neglecting  an  essential  side  of  it. " 

Renan  added  :  "  Scholten  and  Schenkel  would 
maintain,  indeed,  a  historical  and  real  Jesus;  but 
their  historical  Jesus  is  neither  a  messias,  nor  a 
prophet,  nor  a  Jew.  One  does  not  know  what 
He  wanted  :  one  understands  neither  His  life  nor 


THE    COMPROMISE    OF    THE    LIBERALS  265 

His  death.     Their  Jesus  is  an  aeon  in  His  way,  an 
impalpable,    intangible   being. 

"  Pure  history  does  not  know  such  beings.  ^  " 
You  will  have  noticed  that  this  satire,  so  quiet 
but  so  biting,  refers  especially  to  those  Liberals 
(the  greater  number  at  the  time  Renan  wrote) 
who  did  away  almost  entirely  with  the  Messiahship 
of  Jesus.  And  it  was,  indeed,  the  only  logical  thing 
for  them  to  do.  The  middle  school  found  itself 
threatened  on  two  sides.  The  consistent  Eschato- 
logists  were  not  satisfied  with  its  concessions.  And 
on  the  other  side,  Wrede  cruelly  pointed  out  their 
inconsistencies.  To  remove  the  miraculous  ele- 
ments, to  choose  between  different  Gospel  texts,  to 
combine  things  which  are  psychologically  likely, 
is  not  to  write  history.  Liberal  critics  lean  chiefly 
on  Mark.  U  only  they  had  read  him!  Wrede 
misses  no  chance  to  show  that,  according  to  Mark, 
Jesus  is  a  supernatural  being.  His  mission  divine. 
His  action  mysterious,  and  that  in  this  Gospel 
nothing  marks  progress  or  change  in  Jesus'  mind, 
so  that  there  is  already  in  Mark  much  of  the  doc- 
trine of  John.  ^ 


1.  In  Levy,  D.  F.  Strauss,  p.  223,  note  2. 

2.  Das  Messias geheimnis  in  den  Evangelien.  Zugleich  ein 
Beitrag  zum  Verstdndnis  des  Markusevangeliums.  (The 
Messianic  Secret  in  the  Gospels.  Forming  a  contribution 
also  to  the  understanding  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark).  By  D.  W. 
Wrede,  Ordinary  Professor  of  Evangelical  Theology  at  Bres- 
lau,  8°,  comprising  xiv,  292  pp.  Gottingen,  1901.  The 
Revue  biblique  (1903,  p.  625,  ff.)  called  attention  to  the 
importance  of  this  work.  It  appeared  such  to  Schweitzer 
that  the  first  title  of  his  book,  which  we  have  so  frequently 
quoted,  was  Von  Reimarus  zu  Wrede.  This  was  exaggerating 
the  significance  of  both  names. 


266 


THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 


If  all  this,  clearly  what  Mark  intended  to  say, 
be  removed,  there  remains  no  reason  to  hold 'that 
Jesus  believed  Himself  the  Messias.  Since  Mark, 
far  from  being  an  historian,  does  but  reflect  the 
faith  of  the  community,  he  cannot  serve  as  a  basis 
for  history.  We  here  fall  back  into  the  exaggera- 
tions of  Bruno  Bauer,  senseless  as  a  positive  system, 
redoubtable  as  the  reductio  ad  absurdum  of  an  arbi- 
trary method.  The  petulant  but  excessive  attack 
of  Wrede  did  not  much  affect  Liberal  exegesis. 
Other  attacks  left  it  less  indifferent.  They  will  be 
the  subject  of  our  next  lecture. 


EIGHT  LECTURE 

THE  DISCOVERY  BY  JOHANNES  WEISS  OF 
ESCHATOLOGICAL    MESSIANISM. 

We  left  the  Liberals  in  an  embarrassing  situation. 
They  had  been  endeavoring  to  write  a  life  of  Jesus, 
according  to   the   canons   of   historical   criticism, 
which  would  allow  men  of  the  end  of  the  XIX  cen- 
tury  to  recognize   Him   as   their   Master.     Usmg 
St   Mark's  Gospel  as  their  principal   source,  they 
pictured  Jesus  as    endowed  with  purest  religious 
genius  and  wholly  intent  on  improving  the  religious 
and  moral  life  of  others;  as  teaching  a  doctrine  in 
which  mankind  could  still  fmd  the  principles  of  a 
better  Ufe;  as  impelling  men  to  adore  God  as  a 
Father  and  to  seek  for  the  advent  of  His  reign 
within  their  soul.     This  Liberal  view  ehmmated 
everything  in  the  mysterious  person  of  Jesus  which 
rose  above  the  level  of  human  nature.     Jesus  was 
not  a  Messias  who  was  to  found  a  visible  and 
external  reign  of  God;  He  did  not  possess  super- 
natural powers;  He  was  not  the  Son  of  God.     But 
in  these  denials  Liberals  were  in  reality  rejectmg 
claims  which  Jesus  Himself  had  made  accordmg  to 
theh"  own  carefully   selected   documents.     Wrede 
charged  that  for  them  even  St.  Mark  did  not  really 
-count.     He  contended  very  forcibly  that  "   each 
critic  retains  whatever  portion  of  the  traditional 
sayings  can  be  fitted  into  his  construction  of  the 


268  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

facts  and  his  conception  of  historical  possibihty 
and  rejects  the  rest.  "  ^  He  pointed  out  that  if 
one  denies  that  Jesus  claimed  to  be  the  Messias,  His 
life  and  His  death  cease  to  be  intelligible.  A  step 
further  and  His  very  existence  will  be  denied;  some 
skeptics  were  ready  to. take  this  step. 

While  the  Liberal  school  was  wresthng  with  these 
extremists,  whose  attacks  were  based  chiefly  on  liter- 
ary grounds,  it  nvas  vigorously  assailed  from  anoth- 
er side.  In  1892,  Johannes  Weiss,  son  of 
Bernhard  Weiss,  pubhshed  a  short  pamphlet  of 
67  pages  which  was,  among  the  erudite,  little  less 
resounding  than  Strauss's  Life  of  Jesus.  It  was 
entitled  "  The  Preaching  of  Jesus  concerning  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  "  In  the  name  of  historical  cri- 
ticism Johannes  Weiss  declared  war  upon  modern 
theology.  He  expresses  his  mind  very  clearly  in 
the  foreword  of  his  second  edition  in  1900.  Modern 
theology,  he  says,  has  long  since  introduced  into 
the  Gospel  the  ideas  of  Ritschl  which  are  at  bottom 
only  a  residuum  of  the  "  Enlightenment  "  and  of 
the  system  of  Kant.  Now  Jesus  was  not  the  man 
imagined  by  those  moderns,  who  fail  to  project 
themselves  back  into  the  past.  Jesus  was  a  man 
of  His  own  times;  the  hopes  which  dominated  Him 
were  the  hopes  of  His  contemporaries.  Every  one 
then  expected  an  intervention  of  God  which  would 
cause  an  era  of  innocence  and  happiness  to  replace 
the  domination  of  evil;  and  such  must  have  been 
the  reign  of  God  which  Jesus  announced.  He  did 
not  found  it,  He  only  heralded  its  near  coming;  He 

-    1.  Schweitzer,  p.  331. 


^  THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL    MESSIANISM  269 

did  not  bring  it  about  by  His  action,  He  waited  for 
God  to  establish  it  by  an  unheard-of  miracle.  Was 
He,  then,  only  a  prophet?  He  was  conscious  of 
being  much  more,  of  being  the  judge  who  would 
pass  sentence  upon  the  good  and  the  bad,  and  reign 
in  God's  name  over  the  elect.  The  reign  of  God 
belonged  to  the  future;  He  was  the  future  Messias.  ^ 
Weiss,  then,  divests  Jesus  of  the  garb  of  a  Liberal- 
Protestant  pastor.  He  pictures  Him  as  living  and 
breathing  only  in  the  expectation  of  the  interven- 
tion of  God,  of  the  salvation  of  which  He  Himself 
was  to  be  the  agent,  as  wholly  immersed  in  the 
supernatural.  There  is  in  this  thesis  so  true  a 
feeling  of  the  heavenly  elevation  of  Jesus,  and  at 
the  same  time  so  plausible  an  effort  to  place  Him 
in  His  historical  environment,  that  more  than  one 
Catholic  applauded  whole-heartedly  when  another 
book,  "  The  Gospel  and  the  Church  "  of  M.  Loisy, 
contrasted  the  Jesus  of  the  new  school  with 
the  Liberal  Jesus  of  Harnack.  On  second  thought, 
it  was  realized  that  the  new  representation  of 
Our  Lord  was  farther  than  the  old  from  the  por- 
trait before  which  CathoHcs  say  their  prayers.  For 
at  least  the  Liberal  Jesus  had  worked  for  us, 
whereas  the  Jesus  of  Johannes  Weiss  was  absorbed 
by  the  one  idea  of  the  future  reign  of  God,  bringing 
history  to  an  end  and  inaugurating  a  new  and  super- 
natural world.  He  did  not  think  of  the  Church; 
there  was  no  need  t)f  a  Church.  For  the  present 
world  w^as  near  its  end ;  all  in  His  teaching  as  well  as 
in  His  life  was  dominated  by  the  imminence  of 

1.  See  the  Revue  biblique,  1904,  pp.  106  ff. 


270  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

the  supreme  event.  This  is,  as  defined  by  the  new 
school,  the  meaning  of  eschatological,  which  signi- 
fies "  relative  to  the  end.  "  Eschatological  mes- 
sianism  is  that  which  dreams  of  the  inauguration 
of  heaven  upon  earth,  all  history  being  terminated. 

We  are  now  in  presence  of  a  very  living  system, 
upheld  with  passionate  ardor.  Its  exponents 
emphatically  claim  that  it  is  purely  objective,  not 
influenced  by  confessional  prejudices,  characterized 
by  that  independence  which  is  necessary  for  histo- 
rical studies.  They  affirm  that  Jesus  must  have 
had  in  mind  the  conceptions  of  His  time,  and 
they  are  perfectly  confident  that  they  know  what 
these  conceptions  were.  Their  new  light  is  suppo- 
sed to  be  /derived  from  the  study  of  ancient  writings 
hitherto  either  unknown  or  not  understood.  In- 
sistence is  laid  upon  decisive  texts,  which  must  be 
taken  literally,  in  their  evangelical  context,  and 
resolutely  disengaged  from  pious  traditional  sub- 
terfuges. It  is  extremely  difficult  to  escape  the 
confusion  created  by  the  word  eschatological;  for 
with  what  was  Jesus  concerned  if  not  with  the  last 
things  ? 

It  is  the  privilege  of  new  doctrines,  presented  with 
erudition  and  with  art,  to  be  seductive;  and  many 
of  our  contemporaries  are  still  under  the  spell  of 
the  Eschatologists.  Like  all  good  constructions, 
the  system  is  inherently  plausible;  its  sponsors  have 
some  striking  texts  upon  which  they  base  it,  and 
they  do  not  devote  much  attention  to  the  texts 
which  tell  the  other  way.  In  order  to  pass  a 
reasonable  judgment  upon  this  system,  one  has  to 
consider  all  its  aspects,  while  even  a  clear  analysis 


THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL    MESSIANISM  271 

of  the  Eschatologist  position  is  rendered  difficult 
by  lack  of  clearness  on  the  part  of  many  of  its 
defenders. 


The  Eschatological  system  as  presented 
BY  A.  Schweitzer. 


To  make  sure  of  doing  justice  to  their  point  of 
view,  I  shall  borrow  my  analysis  from  Albert 
Schweitzer,  who  has  applied  it  to  the  life  of  Jesus. 
He  is  convinced  that  we  have  at  last  the  key  to  the 
enigma  presented  by  the  soul  of  Jesus,  by  His  life 
and  by  His  death.  We  may  discuss  his  views, 
although  he  makes  the  discussion  easier  for  himself 
by  absolutely  eliminating  St.  John  and  by  taking 
no  account  of  St.  Luke.  But,  at  any  rate,  he  ad- 
mits this  principle,  which  should  be  evident  for  all, 
that  the  portrait  of  Jesus  according  to  St.  Matthew 
is  that  of.  very  powerful  individuality ;  and  that  no 
anonymous  group  of  believers,  desiring  to  justify 
their  faith  (a  faith  which  is,  besides,  not  accounted 
for),  could  have  succeeded  in  creating  such  a  per- 
sonage. There  is,  indeed,  religious  conviction  in 
the  Gospel,  there  is  therein  a  dogma  which  deemed 
itself  superior  to  the  natural  course  of  things.  But 
if  this  dogma  had  not  been  in  the  mind  of  the 
Master,  it  would  not  have  issued  from  the  brain 
of  his  disciples.  Why  should  not  Jesus  have 
thought  as  dogmatically^  and  made  history  as 
actively  as  a  poor  evangehst  constrained  by  a  com- 

18 


272  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

munity-theology  to  do  this  on  paper?  If  the  dis- 
ciples had  thought  themselves  authorized  to  modify 
His  thought,  to  introduce  into  it  their  preoccupa- 
tions, their  rites  and  their  institutions,  it  would 
have  been  very  easy  to  ascribe  to  Him  long  dis- 
courses on  such  topics  as  the  Church,  the  relation 
of  the  Church  to  the  Synagogue,  the  worship  due 
His  person.  But  He  is  represented  as  speaking 
very  little  on  these  subjects,  and  very  much  on  the 
Reign  which  was  to  come.  Tradition  has  very 
faithfully  transmitted  His  thoughts  and  His  words, 
His  supernatural  dogma.  This  is  the  last  condem- 
nation of  Strauss.  Every  one  in  his  place.  The 
disciple  is  not  above  the  Master. 

Let  us  see  what,  according  to  Mr.  Schweitzer, 
Jesus'  dogma  is.  Jesus  enters  into  history  when 
He  brings  into  Galilee  the  announcement  of  the 
imminent  reign  of  God.  From  whom  has  He 
received  this  behef?  Perhaps  from  the  Baptist. 
One  might  say  as  well  that  it  was  in  the  air.  He 
knew  that  He  would  personally  belong  to  the 
kingdom  of  God,  with  His  elect  and  the  angels;  and 
as  the  son  of  David,  it  would  be  His  privilege  to  be 
its  Messias.  Was  this  Messianic  consciousness  the 
result  of  a  vision  at  the  Baptism,  as  the  Liberal 
school  says?  Schweitzer  rightly  doubts  it,  for  this, 
is  not  the  sense  of  tradition. 

Jesus,  then,  thinks  Himself  the  Messias,  son  of 
David.  But  at  the  time,  and  ever  since  the 
appearance  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  another  savior 
was  expected,  namely,  the  Son  of  Man  who  was 
to  come  upon  the  clouds  of  heaven  to  establish  the 
reign  of  God.     Could  Jesus  be  both  the  Davidic 


THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL    MESSIANISM  273 

Messias  and  the  Son  of  Man?  Yes,  it  sufficed  to 
grant  an  earthly  existence  to  the  Son  of  Man  prior 
to  the  performance  of  the  function  which  properly 
belonged  to  Him;  since  the  reign  of  God  was  to 
change  all  the  values  of  the  present  time,  the  Son 
of  David,  living  in  a  modest  condition,  might  hope 
to  become  the  Son  of  Man  at  the  coming  of  the 
reign  of  God.  The  two  vocations  might  be  united 
in  one  person. 

According  to  Liberal  theology,  a  Davidic  descent 
w^as  forged  for  Jesus  after  He  had  been  recognized 
as  the  Messias.  But,  says  Mr.  Schweitzer,  what 
becomes  of  the  affirmation  of  St.  Paul,  who  was  so 
little  concerned  about  the  human  existence  of  the 
Christ  1  ?  One  would  rather  say  that  Jesus  thought 
He  was  the  Messias  because  He  was  the  son  of 
David.  He  could  very  well  know  it,  and  it  w^as 
known  by  those  about  Him;  the  Syrophenician 
woman  '^  and  the  blind  man  of  Jericho  ^  called  Him 
son  of  David. 

Again,  according  to  the  Liberal  solution,  Jesus 
would  have  believed  Himself  Messias  because  He 
felt  Himself  a  son  of  God  in  a  preeminent  degree. 
It  is  more  simple  and  more  appropriate  to  say  that 
He  believed  Himself  Messias  because  He  was  the 
son  of  David,  at  a  time  when  the  Messias  was 
expected. 

But  while  it  is  natural  enough  that  Jesus  should 
have  believed  Himself  to  be  the  Messias  because  He 


1.  Rom.  I,  3. 

2.  Mt.  XV,  22. 

3.  Mk.  X,  47  f. 


J/4  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

was  the  son  of  David,  it  is  very  strange  that  others, 
knowing  that  He  was  the  son  of  David,  had  no  idea 
that  He  was  the  Messias.  The  reason,  Mr.  Schweit- 
zer says,  is  that  people  no  longer  looked  for  an 
earthly,  national  Messias ;  they  thought  only  of  the 
Son  of  Man  coming  upon  the  clouds.  We  shall 
revert  to  this  point.  Another  astonishing  thing 
is  that  Jesus  carefully  conceals  His  Messiahship. 
Why  He  should,  is  not  easy  to  say  if  one  accepts  the 
new  system.  We  explain  that  H  is  concealment  was 
due  to  His  desire  to  avoid  arousing  the  enthusiasm 
of  the  multitude  for  a  national  Messias,  an  enthu- 
siasm which  might  produce  a  revolution  and, 
moreover,  divert  men's  attention  from  God  and  His 
reign.  But  if  Jesus  was  only  the  future  Messias  of 
the  reign  of  God,  why  hide  the  fact?  Mr.  Schweit- 
zer can  only  conjecture  that  Jesus  held  as  a  dogma 
the  obscurity  of  the  Messias,  or  that  perhaps  He 
did  not  wish  to  convert  those  to  whom  the  King- 
dom was  not  destined  1  J  esus  would  have  preached 
like  one  who  does  not  wish  to  be  too  clear,  nor  too 
demonstrative.  Such  a  view  is  in  sharp  contrast 
with  the  more  obvious  notion  one  gets  in  reading 
the  Gospels  that  Jesus  \<^as  a  prophet  who  had 
come  to  cast  fire  upon  the  earth !  But,  anyhow, 
we  must  be  grateful  to  Mr.  Schweitzer  for  having 
given  some  activity  to  the  Christ.  Johannes  Weiss 
had  represented  Him  as  a  passive  pretender,  solely 
preoccupied  about  the  sudden  and  decisive  coming 
of  God. 

This  intervention  of  God  Jesus  confidently 
expected  for  the  time  of  the  coming  harvest.  This 
is  the  reason  He  called  attention  to  seed-sowing 


THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL    MESSIANISM  275 

and  to  the  harvest  in  the  parables  of  the  reign  of 
God.  Time  was  short.  He  felt  it  urgent  to 
address  to  the  people  a  supreme  appeal,  and,  as  He 
could  not  be  everywhere,  He  sent  His  Apostles. 
Here  we  find  brought  back  with  honor  this  Mission 
of  the  Twelve  so  often  banished  from  history  by  the 
Liberals.  Schweitzer  does  not  wish  even  a  line  to 
fall  from  the  recommendations  of  Jesus  recorded 
by  St.  Matthew.  Everything  contained  in  the 
Mission  address  Was  spoken,  in  the  very  circum- 
stances indicated.  The  Apostles  were  charged  to 
announce  not  only  that  the  reign  of  God  was  near 
at  hand,  but  that  it  was  upon  them.  Men  must  do 
penance.  And  Jesus  was  so  sure  of  entering  upon 
the  scene  to  inaugurate  the  reign  that  He  says 
expressly  :  "  Amen  I  say  to  you,  you  shall  not 
finish  all  the  cities  of  Israel,  till  the  Son  of  Man 
come.  "  ^ 

This  prediction  was  not  fulfilled.  The  Apostles 
returned  joyful,  but  the  world  went  on  as  ever. 
This  determined  a  change  of  attitude  in  J^sus.  H  e 
withdrew  with  His  disciples,  and,  that  they  might  be 
undisturbed.  He  left  Galilee  and  turned  towards 
the  north.     What  were  now  His  thoughts? 

He  had  long  known  that  the  crisis  of  salvation 
involved  trials.  The  Messias  would  appear  to  save 
the  good  only  at  the  moment  when  there  would  be 
no  hope  left.  This  is  why  the  disciples  were  to 
say  not  only  :  '"  Thy  kingdom  come,  "  but  "  Lead 
us  not  into  temptation,  "  that  is  to  say,  let  us  not  be 
involved    in    the    hard    trials   which  will  precede 

1.  Mt.  X.  23. 


276  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

deliverance.  If  the  great  harvester  had  let  His 
sickle  fall  from  His  hand,  it  was  because  the  grain 
had  not  yet  ripened  in  the  sun  of  tribulation;  there 
was  something  lacking  in  the  messianic  woes.  ^ 
And  why  should  not  the  Son  of  Man  Himself  be 
called  upon  to  serve,  to  suffer,  to  die,  before  being 
transformed  in  glory?  Jesus  understood  what  God 
asked  of  Him.  Penance  must  precede  the  Reign. 
The  people  had  not  done  penance.  He  would 
atone  for  the  people.  He  knew  it,  confided  it  to 
His  disciples,  and  announced  to  them  at  the  same 
time  His  resurrection. 

This  is  at  least  logical.  The  Liberals  see  a  later 
addition  to  the  Gospel  on  the  triple  prophecy  made 
by  Jesus  of  His  passion  and  resurrection.  It  is, 
indeed,  inexplicable  to  them  that  Jesus  should  all 
at  once  have  had  the  presentiment  that  it  was  His 
destiny  to  die  before  His  mission  was  accompHshed. 
Because  the  people  was  abandoning  Him?  But 
nothing  is  said  of  this  in  the  Gospel.  Whenever  He 
comes  into  contact  with  the  multitudes.  He  finds 
them  curious  to  hear  Him,  eager  to  follow  Him. 
It  was  particularly  unfitting  that  the  sage  of 
the  Liberals  should  prophesy  His  resurrection.  But 
according  to  the  Eschatologists  Jesus  believed 
Himself  Son  of  Man.  To  play  this  part  He  must  be 
transformed  into  a  supernatural  being,  during  life 
or  after  death.  It  must  be  admitted  that  Schweit- 
zer is  faithful  to  the  conditions  he  has  set  himself. 
The  resurrection   of  Christ  is  a  dogma,   say  the 


1.  On  the  Messianic  Woes,  see  the  Commentary  on  St, 
Mark  by  the  present  writer,  on  Mk.  xiii,  8. 


THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL    MESSIANISM  277 

Liberals;  therefore  it  cannot  be  referred  to  in  the 
words  of  the  historical  Jesus.  It  is  a  "dogma,  says 
Schweitzer;  therefore  Jesus'  words  about  it  must 
be  historical.  Jesus  believed  in  the  dogma  of  the 
Son  of  man.  But  the  system  is  less  coherent  in 
regard  to  the  Passion.  Jesus  speaks  of  a  death 
following  a  judgment  passed  by  men.  He  will  not, 
then,  be  carried  off  by  the  whii^lwind  of  the  Messia- 
nic crisis?  If  his  death  will  have  for  its  effect  to 
preserve  others,  we  are  no  longer  in  the  dogma  of 
the  catastrophic  coming  of  the  Reign.  Where  did 
Jesus  get  His  particular  views?  In  Isaias,  says 
Schweitzer,  in  the  chapter  concerning  the  suffering 
Servant,  who  atones  for  the  sins  of  the  people.  At 
the  moment  when  Jesus  affirms  eschatology,  He 
abandons  it ! 

At  least  He  dominates  it.  But  we  shall  have  to 
see  what  the  multitude  thought.  Let  us  continue 
to  follow  Mr.  Schweitzer's  exposition.  Jems 
revealed  his  mind  to  His  disciples  only  after  Peter 
had  penetrated  His  secret,  and  declared  Him  Mes- 
sias  in  presence  of  the  others.  As  a  reward  the 
Master  said  to  him  :  "  Thou  art  Peter  and  upon  this 
rock  I  shall  build  my  Church.  "  ^  These  words, 
which  had  always  been  ill-sounding  to  Protestant 
ears  and  which  had  been  travestied  as  much  as 
possible  by  Luther  himself,  the  Liberals  had  simply 
cut  out  of  the  Gospel.  Schweitzer  keeps  them  in 
the  Gospel,  but  tortures  them  anew.  Why? 
Because  Jesus  could  not  speak  to  Peter  of  a  com- 
munity of  the  faithful  which  He  did  not  contem- 

1.  Mt.  XVI,  18  f. 


2/8  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

plate;  His  Church  must  be  the  preexisting  Reign  of 
God,  in  which  Peter  will  have  full  power.  Must 
we  understand  then,  that  the  Messias  proposed  to 
build  upon  Peter  a  Church  which  already  existed  in 
heaven? 

As  for  the  multitude,  it  could  not,  any  more  than 
the  Baptist,  suspect  that  Jesus  was  the  Messias;  for 
the  Messias  was  to  be  a  supernatural  personality, 
manifested  at  the  end  of  time,  and  He  was  not 
expected  upon  earth  before  the  great  day.  The 
miracles  of  Jesus,  whatever  may  have  been  their 
nature,  were  not  a  Messianic  attribute.  They  were 
not,  either,  the  works  of  an  ordinary  person.  Jesus 
must  be  a  prophet,  doubtless  Elias,  announced  as 
the  precursor  of  the  Messias;  it  is  as  such  that  he 
was  enthusiastically  greeted  by  the  people  of  Jeri;i- 
salem  on  the  day  of  the  Palms. 

Jesus,  however,  now  thinks  only  of  dying.  He 
warns  His  disciples  to  watch,  to  be  on  their  guard; 
He  provokes  His  adversaries  by  driving  out  the 
Temple  vendors  and  afterwards  by  a  vehement 
discourse  against  the  Pharisees.  He  almost  cons- 
trains them  to  rid  themselves  of  Him.  They  must, 
nevertheless,  have  proofs  that  He  pretended  to  be 
the  Messias.  This  is  the  secret  that  Judas  sold 
them.  But  his  testimony  stood  alone.  Other 
grievances  were  sought  for.  As  they  could  find 
nothing  to  justify  a  condemnation,  the  High  Priest 
decided  to  solicit  an  avowal.  Jesus  affirmed  that 
He  was  to  come  as  Son  of  Man  upon  the  clouds. 
It  is  for  this  reason  He  died. 


THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL    MESSIANISM  279 


II 


CRITICISM    OF    THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL    SYSTEM 
CONCERNING    THE    REIGN    OF    GOD. 


This  is,  indeed,  a  consistent  system.  But  from 
the  behever's  point  of  view,  the  gain  is  not  great. 
In&tead  of  a  sage,  a  deluded  enthusiast  is  proposed. 
Since  we  are  obhged  to  discuss  what  is  said  of  the 
person  of  our  adorable  Savior,  I  must  say  that  I 
prefer,  in  the  first  place,*  that  His  own  affirmations 
about  the  supernatural  character  of  His  person  be 
recognized.  We  come  nearer  to  the  old  exegesis  of 
the  Church,  and  that  is  something. 

Yes,  it  is  something  to  restore  their  bearing  to 
those  texts  in  which  Jesus,  in  all  things  so  humble 
and  so  mild,  places  His  rank  at  a  supernatural 
height,  as  He  does  when  He  traces  the  rules  of 
morals  on  the  mountain,  when  He  promises  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  to  those  who  are  persecuted  for 
His  sake,  when  He  forgives  sins,  w^hen  He  promises 
His  disciples  that  they  shall  reign  with  Him.  And 
He  does  all  this  from  the  beginning,  without  any 
fluctuation  of  thought,  without  that  psychological 
transformation  which  the  Liberals  had  imagined  in 
order  to  cause  Jesus  to  be  received  as  any  other 
personage  of  history. 

This  is  the  testimony  which  Jesus  renders  to 
Himself;  it  is  not  the  product  of  a  community  of 
faithful  creating  the  object  of  their  faith.  Jesus 
claims  firmly  to  be  the  king  of  the  future  world. 


280  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

After  listening  to  Him,  let  men  say,  if  they  choose, 
that  He  was  mistaken.  We  prefer  having  the 
dilemma  put  to  souls  in  all  its  clearness;  His  words 
^hould  not  be  obscured  by  an  exegesis  which  tones 
them  down  through  a  feeling  of  false  respect.  Jesus 
believed  Himself  called  to  be  the  head  of  the  reign 
of  God.  We  maintain  even  that  He  declared 
Himself  the  Son  of  God,  one  with  His  Father.  This 
is  very  strange.  But  it  is  certainly  stranger  still 
that  He  drew  after  Him  so  many  who  shared  His 
conviction.  Others  have  set  forth  analogous  pre- 
tentions, but  H§  is  the  only  one  who  has  been 
believed.  History  has  only  to  register  the  fact. 
The  Liberals  protest  that  Jesus  was  too  wise  to 
come  under  such  a  delusion.  They  extol  His 
modesty,  His  clearsightedness,  and  His  pure  relig- 
ious sentiment.  And  this,  too,  is  in  the  Gospel. 
We  conclude  that  both  the  system  of  the  Eschato- 
logists  and  that  of  the  Liberals  has  a  part  of  the 
truth;  that  we  must  unite  what  is  true  in  both 
systems;  that  Jesus  was  conscious  of  His  dignity 
and  that  He  was  not  deluded. 

The  Eschatologists  say  that  Jesus'  whole  life 
was  dominated  by  eschatology. 

This  word,  we  have  said,  signifies  what  relates 
to  the  end.  Now,  there  is  an  end  for  each  man, 
which  is  death;  and  for  those  who  admit  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul,  there  is  an  existence  beyond 
this  end.  For  Israel,  moreover,  there  was  another 
end ;  those  who  had  awaited  the  Messias  had  looked 
for  Him  in  that  future  which  would  be  the  end  and 
the  sequel  of  the  times  in  which  they  lived.  If 
Eschatologists  mean  to  say  that  Jesus  expected 


THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL    MESSIANISM  281 

of  God  a  supernatural  intervention,  connected  with 
His  person,  to  inaugurate  new  times,  before  the 
death  of  men  then  Hving,  we  readily  agree  with 
them.  When  they  add  that  He  foresaw  His  expia- 
tory death  as  a  necessary  means  to  enter  into  His 
Messianic  glory,  w^e  again  think  as  they  do.  Where, 
then,  is  the  abyss  that  separates  us? 

It  does  not  appear  wide,  but  it  is  very  deep. 
According  to  the  new  system,  the  supernatural 
reign  of  God  which  Jesus  announced  as  about  to 
begin  during  the  lifetime  of  His  contemporaries  is  a 
reign  of  absolute  innocence  and  happiness.  The 
end  of  the  world  and  the  general  judgment  were  at 
hand.  The  part  of  the  Messias  was  not  to  better 
mankind,  to  reconcile  it  with  God,  to  put  it  in 
condition  to  serve  Him  more  perfectly,  to  recruit  for 
His  Kingdom.  He  was  to  appear  immediately 
after  His  death  as  a  judge.  The  reign  of  God  was 
to  be  set  up  as  a  whole  and  suddenly  in  the  per- 
fection which  it  already  has  in  heaven,  and  the  role 
of  the  Messias  w^as  to  inaugurate  it.  Jesus  preached 
this  imminent  reign  and  believed  Himself  its  future 
Messias.     Such  are  the  two  columns  of  the  system. 

Upon  what  do  they  rest?  Every  great  figure  of 
history,  it  is  said,  must  be  explained  according  to 
its  time.  If  Jesus  went  beyond  the  eschatological 
concepts  of  the  Jew^s,  it  is  not  by  changing  such  or 
such  a  piece  of  the  machinery,  it  is  by  putting  all 
in  motion  by  His  religious  and  moral  force;  He 
made  functional  ideas  received  by  all. 

Before  submitting  to  you  conclusions  against  this 
system,  which  is,  I  think,  of  German  origin,  I  am 
glad  to  say  that  the  three  German  scholars  w^ho  are 


282  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

best  qualified  in  these  studies,  Wellhausen,  Schiirer 
and  Bousset,  have  pronounced  decidedly  against 
the  view  taken  by  the  Eschatologists  concerning 
the  Jewish  state  of  mind  in  the  time  of  Our  Lord. 

The  sophism  (the  word  is  not  too  strong)  of  the 
Eschatologists  consists,  first,  in  representing  the 
Jewish  people  as  holding  one  simple  view  con- 
cerning the  reign  of  God  and  the  role  of  the  Messias, 
and,  secondly,  in  attenuating  the  divergencies 
between  the  conceptions  of  the  Jewish  people  and 
those  of  Jesus. 

Now,  in  reality,  the  Jews  distinguished  between 
a  reign  of  God  on  earth  and  the  Kingdom  of  God  in 
the  world  beyond  the  grave ;  the  Messias  was  to  be 
the  head  of  the  reign  of  God  on  earth.  And,  what- 
ever divergencies  there  might  be,  they  were 
absolutely  unanimous  on  the  point  that  the  Messias 
was  to  assure  the  triumph  of  Israel.  As  for  Jesus, 
He  manifestly  made  a  distinction  between  the 
reign  of  God  which  was  about  to  come  and  the 
kingdom  prepared  for  His  elect.  He  regard^ed 
Himself  as  the  head  of  this  reign  and  of  this  king- 
dom. But  He  said  very  clearly  that  the  reign  which 
was  about  to  come  would  not  be  that  of  Israel. 
Rather,  the  judgment  of  Israel  was  to  inaugurate 
the  reign,  as  the  judgment  of  all  v/as  definitely  to 
inaugurate  the  kingdom. 

Let  us  now  see  separately  what  regards  the  reign 
and  what  regards  the  Messias. 

The  reign  of  God  is  one  of  the  leading  ideas  of  the 
Old  Testament.  That  the  god  of  each  people  is  its 
king  has  been  believed  by  very  many  men.  In 
Greece  and  in  Italy  the  power  of  the  prince  had  not 


'  THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL    MESSIANISM  283 

had  enough  prestige  to  recommend  it  as  a  dignity 
for  a  god.  But  it  was  otherwise  in  the  Orient. 
What  is  particular  in  the  case  of  Israel,  is  that  its 
monotheism  naturally  involves  universal  monarchy. 
Without  ceasing  to  be  the  king  of  Israel,  God  is  the 
king  of  the  world  and  especially  the  king  of  heaven. 
When  Jews  began,  at  Alexandria  it  seems,  to  reason 
about  the  destiny  of  the  faithlul  departed,  they 
placed  them  near  the  throne  of  God,  associated  with 
Him  in  the  exercise  of  His  royal  power.  ^  The 
right  of  the  king  of  heaven  was  incontestable.  But 
men  submitted  to  it  more  or  less.  And  He,  on  His 
part,  acted  with  more  or  less  power  to  bring  about 
His  recognition  as  Savior  and  as  Master,  Miracu- 
lous interventions  are  already  the  theme  of  the 
Book  of  Judges  according  to  the  rhythm  :  sin,  repen- 
tance, salvation.  By  His  victories  God  was 
strengthening  His  reign.  Then  the  conquests  of 
the  Persians  and  those  of  Alexander  had  inaugu- 
rated universal  empires  such  as  had  been  unknown 
in  ancient  times.  In  the  Book  of  Daniel  the  suc- 
cession of  empires  ended  in  the  dominion  of  the 
saints,  which  w^as  to  be  the  reign  of  God  : 

"  And  the  reign  and  the  power,  and  dominion 
over  the  kingdoms  under  all  heaven  will  be  given 
to  the  saints  of  the  Most  High,  whose  reign  is  an 
eternal  reign,  and  all  powers  will  serve  Him  and 
obey  Him.  "  ^ 

These  were  very  general  doctrines,  which  every 
one  interpreted  in  his  own  way.     There  w^ere  two 

1.  Wisdom,  III,  7  fT.,  v,  15  f. 

2.  Dan.  vii  ,27;  see  Revue  biblique,  1904,  p.  498. 


284  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

themes,  according  as  more  or  less  room  was  given 
to  the  action  of  God.  The  theme  which  most 
emphasized  God's  action  represents  God  as  mira- 
culously doing  everything,  and  in  a  sudden,  com- 
plete way,  by  a  radical  transformation  of  the 
conditions  of  existence. 

This  excessive  form,  which  leaves  men  in  a  quiet- 
istic  passivity,  is  hardly  to  be  found  anywhere 
except  in  the  Assumption  of  Moses,  a  little  work 
which  may  be  dated  in  the  year  10  B.  C.  The  hero 
of  this  story  proposes  to  his  seven  sons  to  withdraw 
to  a  cavern  there  to  die ;  God  will  avenge  them  : 

Then  His  reign  over  all  creation  shall  appear, 

then  the  devil  shall  have  his  end, 
and  sorrow  shall  be  taken  away  with  him, 

then  shall  be  invested  with  his  charge  the  angel, 
who  is  set  at  the  summit, 

who     immediately    shall    avenge    them     of    their 
enemies... 
Then  thou  shalt  be  happy,  Israel, 

and  thou  shalt  mount  upon  the  neck  and  the  wings 
of  the  eagle... 
And  God  shall  raise  thee  up 

and  set  thee  in  the  starry  heaven.  ^ 

Allusions  to  the  action  of  God  of  a  marvelous 
kind  might  be  multiphed ;  but  it  should  be  observed 
that  in  these  writings  which  represent  the  apoca- 
lyptic mode  of  visions,  the  technical  term  "  reign  of 
God,  "  or  its  equivalent,  "  reign  of  heaven  "  is 
nei^er  found. 

On  the  contrary,  in  those  which  represent  the 

1.   Le  Messianisme,  p.  119. 


THE    ESCHA.TOLOGICAL    MESSIANISM  285 

Other  mode,  that  of  orthodox  or  rabbinic  Judaism, 
we  find  very  often  the  expression  «  reign  of 
heaven,  «  the  word  heaven  being  chosen  to  avoid 
pronouncing  the  sacred  name  of  God.  Differently 
from  the  apocalyptists,  in  the  Targums  and  the 
Michna  or  Talmuds  the  scribes  make  the  reign  of 
God  dependent  on  the  good  will  of  men.  The 
right  of  God  comes,  of  course,  from  His  nature,  but 
He  must  be  recognized.  On  the  day  of  his  call, 
Abraham  chose  the  reign  of  God.  and  in  the  Sifre 
we  read  in  plain  words  :  "  Before  our  father  Abra- 
ham was  in  the  world.  God  was  king  only  in  heaven; 
but  when  Abraham  came,  he  made  Him  king  in 
heaven  and  on  earth.  "  ^  After  Abraham,  the 
people  of  Israel  made  God  reign  by  taking  Him  as 
their  king.  The  just  must  acknowledge,  accept, 
take  upon  themselves  the  sovereignty  of  God;  this 
is  the  way  to  cause  Him  really  to  reign. 

Again,  this  is  an  extreme  form  of  the  concept  of 
the  reign  of  God,  and  we  do  not  maintain  that  it 
was  the  only  one  that  was  spread  in  Israel  in  the 
time  of  Jesus.  But  it  has  too  many  roots  in  Ju- 
daism, it  is  too  conformable  to  the  Pharisaic  mind 
such  as  is  combated  by  St.  Paul,  not  to  have  figured 
among  the  doctrines  of  the  time.  It  goes  without 
saying  that  the  acknowledgment  of  the  reign 
of  God  bettered  conditions  in  the  world  without 
changing  them  completely;  according  to  the 
teaching  of  the  masters  of  Israel,  the  supreme 
point  was  faithfully  16  observe  the  law  and  to 
spread  the  knowledge  thereof  in  order  to  merit 

1.  Le  Messianisme,  p.  152.  ' 


286  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

a  participation  in  the  world  to  come.  But  by  this, 
in  the  time  of  Jesus,  they  certainly  meant  the 
existence  of  the  just  with  God  after  death.  The 
Psalms  of  Solomon,  written  in  the  spirit  of  the 
Pharisees  of  about  40  B.  C,  clearly  attest  this 
predominant  preoccupation.  Now  the  Israelites, 
in  Galilee  and  at  Jerusalem,  followed  blindly  the 
doctrines  of  the  party  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees; 
Josephus  says  so  openly,  and  the  Gospels  attest  it. 

Let  us  take  note  of  this  fact,  which  will  perhaps 
not  fit  in  with  received  opinions.  The  teaching  of 
the  Scribes,  nationalistic  as  it  was,  was  Jess  so  than 
the  tenets  of  the  violent  messianists.  The  Scribes 
aroused  the  will,  —  without,  it  is  true,  taking  God's 
help  sufficiently  into  account,  —  preached  moral 
conduct,  urged  the  Gentiles  to  observe  the  Law ; 
but  the  greater  number  of  the  Pharisees  raised  no 
opposition  against  the  yoke  of  Herod,  nor  against 
that  of  the  Romans,  whose  domination  appeared 
to  them  willed  by  Providence.  Their  tendencies 
were  optimistic,  they  did  not  yet  despair  of  the 
present  world,  as  people  did  in  the  time  of  the 
IV  book  of  Esdras  and  of  the  apocalypse  of  Baruch, 
after  the  taking  of  Jerusalem. 

On  the  contrary,  the  visionaries,  very  sure  of 
their  right  to  the  help  of  God,  do  not  speak  of  pro- 
gressive amelioration;  they  call  upon  the  Lord  to 
avenge  Israel,  and  give  vent  to  the  most  rancorous 
hatred  of  their  adversaries.  Sometimes  Israel  is 
not  named;  the  fight  is  between  the  good  and  the 
bad,  but  the  good  are  always  the  chosen  part  of 
Israel.  If  they  call  for  divine  intervention,  it  is 
because  the  situation  appears  to  them  desperate. 


THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL    MESSI.VNISM  287 

They  require  a  triumph,  complete  and  immediate, 
and  in  favor  of  Israel. 

Once  more,  between  the  two  extreme  opinions, 
there  is  a  whole  scale  of  gradations.  The  error  of 
the  Eschatological  system  is  precisely  that  it  does 
not  take  them  into  account,  and  that  it  regards  the 
opinion  of  the  visionaries  as  the  reigning  opinion, 
as  an  opinion  so  predominant  that  Jesus,  speaking 
of  the  reign  of  God,  would  not  need  to  explain 
what  it  w^as.  They  take  it  for  granted  that  every- 
body would  connect  the  idea  with  a  catastrophe,  — 
Divine,  sudden,  complete.  Now,  we  have  just 
seen  that  this  so-called  reigning  view  was  only 
that  of  some  groups;  this  is  so  true  that  until  very 
recently  there  were  found  no  traces  of  it  in  history. 

But  Jesus  might  have  given  His  approval  to  an 
isolated  opinion.  Did  He  believe  that  the  world 
was  about  to  come  to  an  end,  that  God  had  resolved 
not  to  ameHorate  the  world  but  to  replace  it  with 
the  reign  of  absolute  righteousness  which  He 
(Jesus)  w^as  to  inaugurate  on  earth  as  Messias? 

The  new  system  says  that  He  did  so  believe,  and 
it  makes  its  affirmation  to  rest  on  what  is  called  the 
eschatological  discourses  of  the  Savior.  We  have 
seen  the  use  made  by  Schweitzer  of  the  instruction 
for  the  mission  of  the  Apostles  in  St.  Matthew. 
The  difficulty  presented  by  the  discourses  on  the 
taking  of  Jerusalem  and  the  end  of  the  w^orld  is  still 
more  famous.  ^ 

I  confess  that  for  my  part  I  do  not  know  how  to 
solve  either  difficulty  if  the  order  in  which  the 


i.  Mk.  XIII,  5-37. 

19 


288  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

words  of  Christ  are  given  be  considered  as  invio- 
lable, as  attested  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  What  can  we 
answer  to  the  objection  based  on  the  words  from 
Jesus'  charge  :  "  You  shall  not  finish  aU  the  cities 
of  Israel  till  the  Son  of  Man  come?  "  The  Apostles 
returned,  and  the  Son  of  Man  had  not  yet  manifest- 
ed Himself.  He  had  of  course  come  upon  earth, 
but  this  was  before  the  mission  of  the  Apostles; 
Jesus  was  speaking  of  His  glorious  manifestation. 
It  did  not  take  place  before  their  return.  This  is, 
you  remember,  the  objection  which  Reimarus 
judged  sufficient  to  ruin  Christianity,  so  clearly 
does  it  set  forth  a  fact  which  shows  that  the  words 
of  its  Founder  cannot  be  reUed  upon. 

St.  Matthew  does  not  say  that  the  disciples 
returned  to  their  Master.  This  is  doubtless  because 
the  Evangelist  felt  that  the  mission  discourse  went 
far  beyond  the  horizon  of  the  Galilee  mission. 
And,  indeed,  it  contains  recommendations  which 
relate  only  to  the  times  which  will  follow  the  death 
of  Jesus  :  "  You  shall  be  brought  before  governors 
and  before  kings,  for  my  sake...  "  Neither  St. 
Mark  nor  St.  Luke  have  this  passage.  We  know 
that  St.  Matthew  has  several  of  those  long  dis- 
courses in  which  he  groups  divers  sayings  which, 
we  know  from  St.  Luke,  were  uttered  on  various 
occasions.  He  has  done  this  here.  Will  criticism, 
which  is  so  bold  in  its  rearrangements  and  sup- 
pressions of  traditional  elements,  regard  it  as  a 
crime  that  we  discern  here  two  instructions  com- 
bined into  one  discourse?  And  we  shall  apply  the 
same  solution  to  the  eschatological  discourse  repre- 
sented as  pronounced  within  sight  of  Jerusalem, 


THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL    MESSIANISM  289 

announcing  the  ruin  of  the  city  and  the  coming  of 
the  Son  of  Man.  ^  In  a  saying  preserved  by  St. 
Matthew  and  by  St.  Luke,  -  Jesus  said  to  the  holy 
city  :  "  Your  house  shall  be  left  to  you  desolate"; 
consequently  Jerusalem  shall  be  ruined  and  remain 
ruined.  There  is  no  question  of  supernatural 
transformation.  The  punishment  of  the  city  will 
be  part  of  the  judgment  of  God,  at  the  moment 
when  He  will  establish  His  reign.  But  the  world 
will  not  for  this  reason  be  replaced  by  the  kingdom 
of  the  elect  and  by  Gehenna.  There  are  here  two 
perspectives  which  have  been  brought  together 
only  by  a  common  conception  of  the  judgment  of 
God. 

This  explanation,  suggested  by  the  contexture 
of  the  passages,  agrees  perfectly  with  the  whole 
attitude  of  Jesus.  There  is  nothing  in  His  conduct 
which  suggests  the  desperate  pessimism  and  the 
fierce  patriotism  of  those  who  expected  the  sudden 
manifestation  of  the  reign  of  God.  His  preaching 
is,  indeed,  dominated  by  His  eschatology.  But  He 
has  in  mind  two  ends.  One  is  that  which  is  reached 
when  men  attain  their  final  salvation  in  the  super- 
natural kingdom  of  God.  He  came  to  preach.  He 
came  to  heal  those  who  were  sick;  He  came  that 
men  might  have  life  with  His  Father.  And  this 
hfe  such  as  it  will  be  in  the  future,  He  called  the 
kingdom  of  God.  This  expression  was  not  indeed, 
received  in  rabbinic  Judaism;  but  the  idea  was  that 


1.  See   Revue  hiblique,  1906,  pp.   382-ill   and   our   Com- 
rnentaire  de  saint  Marc,  pp.  312  ff. 

2.  Mt.  XXIII,  37  IT.;  Lk.  xiii,  34  f. 


290  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

i 

of  the  Palestinian  Jews.  If  the  term  kingdom  to 
designate  the  other  world  is  a  creation  of  Jesus,  we 
have  another  proof  that  He  did  not  restrict  Himself 
to  words  used  by  everybody  else.  It  cannot  be 
denied  that  He  spoke,  and  more  than  once,  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  as  opposed  to  Gehenna.  He 
determined  the  condition  for  entrance  to  this 
kingdom,  and  told  what  sacrifices  must  be  made  to 
enter  therein.  ^  This  is  one  incontestable  sense  of  the 
w^ord  of  hasileia,  reign  or  kingdom,  which  is  not 
borrowed  from  the  apocalypses.  But  He  also 
spoke  of  the  reign  of  God  which  was  to  come  here 
on  earth.  He  depicted  it  in  the  parable  of  the 
sow^er  as  a  gift  of  God  which  required  the  collabora- 
tion of  man,  the  free  acceptation  of  the  will.  ^  Far 
from  looking  upon  it  as  a  catastrophic  happening, 
He  compared  it  to  a  grain  of  mustard-seed  which 
becomes  a  great  tree,  and  to  yeast  which  leavens 
the  whole  mass.  ^  Perfect  justice  was  not  yet  to 
prevail,  since  there  was  to  be  cockle  therein.  *  This 
reign  of  God  was  not  for  Israel  the  realization  of  its 
desire  of  revenge,  since  the  vineyard,  that  is  Israel, 
the  heritage  of  God,  was  to  be  given  to  others.  ^ 
The  parables  simply  cannot  be  made  to  say  that 
the  reign  of  God  will  exist  only  at  the  end  of  the 
world.  Its  estabhshment  will,  indeed,  be  the  result 
of  a  miracle,  but  of  the  kind  God  works  when  He 
causes  His  sun  to  shine  upon  the  just  and  the 

1.  Mk.  IX,  46,  X,  23  ff. 

2.  Mk.  IV,  26. 

3.  Mt.  XIII,  31-33;  Lk.  xiii,  18-21. 

4.  Mt.  XIII,  24-30. 

5.  Mk.  XII,  1-11. 


THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL    MESSIANISM  291 

unjust.  In  the  kingdom  of  the  beyond,  there  will 
be  no  mixture,  no  longer  anything  earthly,  the 
elect  shall  be  like  the  angels  of  heaven.  ^  But 
this  is  to  be  understood  of  a  Divine  life  after  death 
and  after  resurrection.  This  kingdom  into  which 
one  enters  is  not  the  same  thing  as  the  reign  which  is 
coming.  The  identification  is  excluded  more 
clearly  still  when  the  reign  of  God  is  said  to  have 
come  already  :  '"  If  I  by  the  Spirit  of  God  cast  out 
demons,  then  is  the  reign  of  God  come  among 
you.  "  - 

For  this  reign  which  has  already  begun  in  its 
initial  stage,  Jesus  preaches  a  righteousness  superior 
to  that  of  the  Law  of  Moses.  It  is  a  hard  necessity 
for  the  Eschatologists  to  have  to  say  that  the  moral 
teaching  of  Jesus  is  provisory.  This  Divine 
teaching,  so  pure  that  it  has  renewed  the  inner  life, 
so  durable  that  many  cling  to  it  even  after  they  have 
renounced  our  dogma,  would  be  interim  teaching ! 
The  morals  of  the  beatitudes  would  have  been  in 
the  mind  of  Jesus  only  a  means  to  hasten  the 
advent  of  the  reign  of  God  1  We  could,  indeed, 
admit  this  last  contention  since  He  has  taught  us  to 
say  :  "  May  thy  reign  come.  "  The  reign  of  God 
comes  as  man  becomes  better.  The  masters  of 
Judaism  taught  this,  though  they  did  not  make 
enough  of  the  grace  of  God.  What  could  be  more 
remote  from  the  quietistic  pessimism  of  the  Assump- 
tion of  Moses,  from  the  anxiety  to  end  all  of  the 
books  of  Henoch  or  of  the  Sihyls,  than  this  loyal 


1.  Mk.  XII,  25. 

2.  Mt.  XII,  28. 


292  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

striving  after  a  perfection  of  which  God  alone  is  the 
exemplar?  Is  it  conceivable  that  He  who  said  : 
"  I  am  not  come  to  abolish,  "  that  is,  to  do  away 
with  the  moral  law  of  Moses,  "  but  to  fulfil,  "  ^  that 
is,  to  perfect,  He  who  opposed  to  what  was  said 
to  the  ancients  what  He  taught  Himself,  He  who 
created  a  new  order  of  more  perfect  justice,  expec- 
ted the  end  of  the  world  at  the  time  of  the  next 
harvest? 

Not  that  the  words  reign  of  God  are  simply  a 
designation  of  the  Church  of  earth.  It  is  a  broader 
concept.  Henceforth  God  will  reign  as  He  has 
not  reigned  before,  because  His  reign  will  have  a 
Head  in  the  person  of  the  Messias,  because  He  will 
be  better  known  and  loved.  We  do  not  identify, 
either,  the  reign  of  God  announced  by  Jesus  with 
that  of  the  rabbis,  in  which  God's  partis  so  restrict- 
ed. No,  the  Savior  has  not  attenuated  the  action 
of  God;  theatrical  intervention,  upheavals,  catas- 
trophes ending  in  the  victory  of  Israel,  the  exis- 
tence of  the  just  in  the  midst  of  plenty,  —  such 
dreams  do  not  contemplate  anything  more  Divine 
than  the  Passion  which  reconciles  the  world  with 
God,  and  the  Resurrection  which  inaugurates  the 
kingdom  by  the  triumph  of  its  Head.  Just  as  Jesus 
based  upon  the  Decalogue  a  more  perfect  holiness. 
He  used  at  times  traditional  and  current  imagery  to 
designate  the  judgment  of  the  Lord.  This  is  no 
reason  to  regard  Him  as  an  echo  of  the  opinion  of 
visionaries  or  of  revolutionaries,  who  formed  a  rela- 
tively small  group  in  Israel.     No,  he  did  not  set  in 

1.  Mt.  V,  17  ff. 


THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL    MESSIANISM  293 

movement  a  machine  that  was  entirely  ready  for 
use.  He  subjected  Himself  neither  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  rabbis,  nor  to  the  fantastic  concepts  of  the  pessi- 
mists. He  read  in  the  Scriptures  that  the  reign 
of  God  would  be  manifested  with  brilliancy;  He 
announced  that  the  time  was  come,  laid  the  foun- 
dation for  this  reign  by  His  teaching,  accepted  the 
Passion  w^hich  was  to  establish  it,  confident  of  the 
Resurrection  which  should  be  its  glory.  But  He 
did  not  say  when  earth  would  cease  to  furnish 
recruits  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Nothing  was 
to  be  changed  in  the  normal  course  of  nature,  and 
nevertheless  He  could  say  wdthout  exaggeration  : 
"  Some  of  them  that  stand  here  shall  not  taste  death 
till  they  see  the  reign  of  God  come  in  power.  "  ^ 
And  what  would  an  earthly  upheaval  be  compared 
to  what  is,  in  the  eyes  of  faith,  the  entrance  of 
Christ  into  His  glory,  the  pouring  out  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  foundation  of  the  Church?  Do  even 
unbelievers  know  of  a  more  notable  date  in  the 
history  of  mankind? 

The  words  of  the  Savior  concerning  the  coming 
of  the  reign  of  God  are  not  all  to  be  explained  as 
technical  expressions  of  a  well  determined  and 
universally  received  concept  of  the  advent  of  God's 
reign.  Some  of  them  are  figurative  terms  expres- 
sive of  Divine  facts;  many  of  the  most  startling  and 
imposing  in  their  effect  are  less  grandiose  than  th'ose 
of  the  prophets.  There  is,  indeed,  a  tragical  event 
foreshadowed  in  some  of  His  sayings  —  an  event 
which  will  bring  to  a  conclusion  centuries  of  history 

1.  Mk.  IX,  1. 


294  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

and  change  everything  even  within  the  lifetime  of 
the   contemporary   generation.     This  is  the  judg- 
ment passed  upon  Israel.     The  expression  used  by 
Jesus  may  seem  too  strong  to  apply  to  such  an 
unimportant  event.     What  was  the  ruin  of  Israel 
compared    to  the  cataclysm  of  the  present  world- 
war?     If   you   wish   to   understand    His   threats, 
betake  yourselves  in  thought  to  the  country  of 
Israel.     For  centuries  Israel  has  been  the  people  of 
God.     Often  chastised,  she  has  repented,  and  God 
has  pardoned  her.     This  has  lasted  long,  but  it  is 
finished.     Now  ruin  is  inevitable,   the  judgment 
draws  near  which  the  ancient  seers  of  Israel  had 
contemplated,  their  mind  numbed  with  terror;  for 
these  seers  borrowed  from  the  triumph  of  mur- 
derous   enemies,    from    earthquakes    shaking   the 
earth  to  its  foundations,  from  the  darkening  of  the 
sun  and  the  fall  of  the  stars,  images  to  express  the 
sentiments  inspired  by  the  coming  exercise  of  the 
wrath  and  the  judgment  of  God  upon  His  people. 
The  most  ardent  patriotism  and  the  deepest  relig- 
ious feeling  were  moved  in  these  great  souls.     More 
than  all  of  them  did  Jesus  experience  this  sorrow. 
He  has  sometimes  expressed  it  with  their  images ;  for 
we  do  not  think  that  tradition  attributed  to  Him 
.without  reason  these  quotations  from  the  prophets. 
And  the  judgment  came,  at  the  time  which  He  had 
predicted.     Israel  still  exists,  but  stricken;  all  her 
thought  is  focused   upon  that   unique   blow   the 
memory  of  which  she  would  efface.     It  was,  indeed^ 
a  terrible  judgment,  the  end  of  a  world. 

The  Savior  foresaw  a  catastrophe.  Only  Israel 
was  to  be  its  victim,  —  a  view  shared  by  none  of  the 
visionaries  or  agitators  of  His  age.     This  is  one 


THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL    MESSIANISM  AWo 

undeniable  difference  between  His  concept  of  the 
reign  of  God  and  that  of  others.  He  announced 
the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  and  threatened  the  towns  of 
Galilee,  Capharnaum,  Bethsaida  and  Corozain  with 
a  chastisement  more  severe  than  that  of  Sodom,  ^ 
because  they  had  failed  to  repent  and  had  shown 
themselves  deaf  to  His  appeal.  And  after  the  ruin 
of  Israel  there  is  to  be  a  future  for  the  reign  of 
God  here  on  earth.  Eschatologists  tell  us  that 
Jesus  understood  that  He  must  die  when  He  failed 
to  move  Israel  to  repentance.  But  they  fail  to 
explain  why  He  should  die.  Was  it  to  take  the 
place  of  His  impenitent  people?  If  so,  would  the 
chastisement  be  withdrawn?  No,  it  is  irrevocable. 
The  vineyard  will  be  given  to  others,  to  punish  the 
wicked  husbandmen  for  this  last  homicide,  the 
murder  of  the  Son.  We  are  here  at  the  essential 
point.  The  death  of  Jesus  could  not  be  useless. 
It  was  to  extend  the  reign  to  others  than  the 
Jews,  to  those  w^ho  w^ould  not  refuse  to  take  their 
place  therein.  -  It  must  be  proposed  to  them,  and 
this  was  not  the  mission  of  Jesus.  If  the  reign  of 
the  Eschatologists,  bringing  in  the  end  of  the  world, 
were  to  begin  wdth  the  death  of  the  expiatory 
victim,  this  death  would  be  of  use  to  no  one ;  for  it 
could  not  be  admitted,  without  going  absolutely 
against  the  thought  of  Jesus,  that  any  one  could  be 
subject  to  the  reign  of  God  without  an  act  of  faith 
and  penitence.  ^  If  it  were  even  simultaneous 
with  the  catastrophe,  when  could  the  Gentiles  be 


1.  Mt.  XI,  20-24. 

2.  Mt.  VIII,  11  f.;  Lk.  xiii,  28  f. 

3.  Mt.  v.  20. 

\ 


296  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

invited  to  replace  the  Jews  at  the  banquet  of  the 
king?  ^  There  must  be  a  future,  after  the  death 
of  the  Savior ;  not  much  is  said  of  the  time  left  for 
the  ingathering  of  the  nations,  but  what  is  said 
gives  an  indefinite  vista.  Jesus  does  not  wish  to 
say  when  the  end  will  come;  one  must  ever  watch. 
But  He  takes  measures  that  His  blood  shall  not  be 
shed  in  vain;  He  prepares  His  Apostles  to  preach, 
and  charges  them  to  commemorate  His  sacrifice.  ^ 
All  is  sufficiently  clear;  no  quibble  can  prevail 
against  this  necessity  to  have  upon  earth  a  new 
reign  of  God  in  which  may  be  formed  the  elect  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  associated  with  the  saints  of 
Israel. 

Jesus,  then,  spoke  of  the  reign  of  God  without 
explanations  to  the  multitude.  There  was,  indeed, 
an  idea  of  this  reign  everywhere  received,  which 
was  derived  from  the  Scriptures,  which  was  the 
most  substantial  element  of  all  hopes,  the  theme 
of  all  the  variations  :  the  sovereign  power  of  God, 
His  right  to  receive  the  homages  of  men.  But  He 
had  His  way  of  understanding  the  reign  of  God;  He 
did  not  regard  it  as  a  simple  progress  of  the  Law,  as 
did  the  rabbinic  writings,  not  as  the  establishment 
of  absolute  justice  as  did  the  books  of  Henoch,  nor 
as  the  victory  of  Israel  as  did  the  Zealots  and  all 
the  others.  He  gave  some  notion  of  the  reign  to 
the  multitudes,  and  to  His  disciples  He  revealed  its 
secret  —  His  death  offered  for  the  salvation  of 
souls.     He   did   more   and   better   than  to   speak 

1.  Mt.  XXII,  1  fl. 

2.  I  Cor.  XI,  24-26. 


THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL    MESSIANISM  297 

about  it.     He  prepared  it,  He  founded  it.     It  still 
lasts. 

Ill 

The  Eschatologists'  Messias. 

Not  less  important  than  the  notion  of  the  reign  of 
God  is  that  of  the  Messias.  Before  seeking  for  this 
notion  in  obscure  apocryphal  books,  should  we  not 
interrogate  history  written  in  the  open?  The  best 
advantage  to  be  derived  from  the  knowledge  of 
books  is  the  knowledge  of  the  realities  with  which 
they  deal.  Here  again,  Germany  has  shown  herself 
little  concerned  to  set  her  ideas  in  a  real  environ- 
ment. She  has  deduced  a  theoretical  messianism, 
without  getting  at  messianism  in  action.  People 
have  not  known  how  to  read  the  books  of  Josephus. 
Josephus  believed  in  a  lay  messianism  of  which  he 
was  inclined  to  make  Vespasian  the  hero;  he  was 
the  enemy  of  the  fanatics  responsible  for  the  ruin 
of  his  country;  he  cannot,  then,  be  suspected  of 
having  overdrawn  the  picture  of  Israelite  messia- 
nism in  revolt  against  Rome.  Now,  notwith- 
standing his  reticence,  he  has  not  been  able  to 
conceal  the  fact  that  there  was  agitation  created  by 
false  Messiases,  who  drew  the  multitudes  after  them 
by  promising  a  miraculous  deliverance.  The  yoke 
of  the  Romans  would  be  shaken  off  by  God,  who 
willed  to  be  the  real  master  of  Israel.  This  is  the 
imminent  reign  of  God  preached  by  more  than  one 
adventurer  who  posed  as  Messias.     These  move- 


298  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

ments  began  at  the  time  of-  Jesus'  birth,  when  the 
Pharisees,  in  great  number,  refused  to  countenance 
a  census  after  the  Roman  manner;  they  took  on  a 
revolutionary  form  with  Judas  the  Gahlean,  whom 
Josephus  makes  the  founder  of  a  sect  of  philosophy 
which  "  would  admit  only  God  as  head  and  mas- 
ter. "  ^  Judas,  son  of  Ezechias,  perhaps  the  same  a& 
Judas  the  Galilean,  claimed  to  be  the  Messias;  then 
came  Simon,  then  Athronges,  who  both  assumed  the 
diadem.  The  party  of  the  Zealots  became  that  of 
the  sicarii  in  the  time  of  the  great  rebellion;  but, 
before  that,  Pilate  had  harshly  repressed  the 
attempt  of  an  impostor  who  promised  to  show  the 
people  'the  sacred  vessels  deposited  by  Moses  at 
Mount  Garizim. 

The  individual  attempts  to  claim  the  Messiahship 
have  not  been  related  in  detail;  we  cannot  exactly 
define  what  messianic  concepts  were  involved. 
Nor  can  we  discover  in  the  apocalypses  of  the  time 
the  exact  ideal  the  success  of  which  was  awaited, 
either  through  violent  means  or  from  God  alone, 
with  more  or  less  of  reliance  on  arms  or  of  confident 
quietism.  But  there  is  an  evident  connection 
between  the  apocryphal  books  and  the  facts. 
Schweitzer  has  flattered  himself  that  he  has  succeed- 
ed in  setting  forth  a  consistent  eschatology.  But 
he  has  not.  The  consistent  eschatology  is  that 
which  ranks  Jesus  with  Zealot  agitators  who  pro- 
mised the  near  establishment  of  the  reign  of  God; 
the  same  preaching  would  have  led  Him  to  the 
same  execution.     It  is  not  given  to  all  critics  to  go 

1.  Le  Messianisme J  T^.  18. 


THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL    MESSIANISM  299 

50  far  as  this  ^.  Critics  have  thought  to  do  better 
in  estabhshing  a  sort  of  harmony  between  the  reign 
of  God  and  its  Messias.  They  require  a  future 
Messias  to  inaugurate  a  future  reign;  they  beheve 
they  have  found  him.  In  the  Eschatological 
system,  the  notion  of  the  Messias  has  transformed 
itself  into  a  new  and  very  precise  notion,  that  of 
the  Son  of  Man,  aw^aited,  together  with  the  reign, 
to  bring  salvation  and  reestabUsh  justice.  And, 
indeed,  in  the  very  rare  texts  which  give  a  head  to 
the  '■  terminal  "  reign,  this  head  like  the  reign  itself, 
€omes  from  God;  he  had  not,  and  could  not  have, 
an  earthly  existence.  The  Book  of  the  Parables 
of  Henoch,  follo^^dng  the  prophecy  of  Daniel, 
represent  the  Son  of  Man  as  a  celestial  being 
sent  by  God  to  render  justice. 

This  is  how  he  appears  :  ''  There  I  saw  one  who 
had  a  '  head  of  days,  '  and  his  head  was  like  white 
wool  "  —  it  is  the  image  of  the  Eternal  Father,  — 
"  and  with  him  another  w^hose  figure  was  like  that 
of  a  man,  and  his  figure  was  full  of  grace,  like  one 
of  the  holy  angels.  I  questioned  the  angel  who 
w^alked  with  me,  and  who  was  making  known  to 
me  all  the  secrets  concerning  this  Son  of  Man  : '  Who 
is  he,  and  whence  does  he  come?  Why  does  he 
walk  with  the  Head  of  davs?  '  " 


1.  We  read  in  La  Religion  of  M.  Loisy,  p.  134  :  "  The 
historian  Josephus  presents  as  head  of  a  sect  the  principal 
agent  of  this  revolt,  Judas  the  Galilean ;  the  sect  is  that  of  the 
Zealots,  of  the  violent  messianists...  One  of  these  messianic 
personages,  —  people  do  not  generally  hesitate  to  qualify 
the  others  as  adventurers  or  the  victims  of  delusion,  —  was 
Jesus  the  Nazarene...  " 


300  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

^  As  to  his  work  :  "  The  Son  of  Man  whom  thou 
hast  seen  will  cause  the  kings  and  the  powerful  to 
rise  from  their  couches,  and  the  strong  from  their 
seats;  and  he  will  break  the  back  of  the  strong...  "  ^ 

He  is  a  prince  of  the  court  of  God,  if  not  one  asso- 
ciated with  Him  on  the  throne.  True,  this  Son  of 
Man  is  likened  to  Henoch.  If  we  do  not  see  here 
an  after-touch,  we  must  remember  that  the  exis- 
tence of  Henoch  was  lost  in  the  night  of  the  ages. 
He  was  not  to  come  back  to  earth  except  in 
glory. 

I  do  not  wish  to  ask  if  this  strange  figure  is  not  a 
Jewish  counterfeit  of  Jesus  Christ  glorified,  nor  to 
insist  on  the  uncertainty  of  the  date  of  the  Parables 
attributed  to  Henoch.  Let  us  suppose  that  they 
are  anterior  to  Jesus  Christ,  that  at  Jerusalem 
people  had  heard  of  the  Son  of  Man  otherwise 
than  through  Daniel.  No  one  could  thiak  that  a 
mortal  man  was  the  Son  of  Man.  Johannes  Weiss 
has  said :  "  Jesus  could  be  a  Doctor,  a  Prophet,  an 
Envoy  of  God,  God's  Chosen  One,  Son  of  David, 
and  even  Son  of  God,  but  He  is  not  yet  this  Son 
of  Man,  He  can  only  become  the  Son  of  Man.  "  ^ 
By  these  words  has  not  Weiss  condemned  himself? 
For  if  Jesus  did  not  take,  during  His  mortal  hfe,  the 
title  of  Son  of  Man,  there  is  nothing  certain  in  the 
Gospel.  If  then  Weiss  is  right  about  the  notion 
then  current  of  the  Son  of  Man,  it  must  be  agreed 
that  Jesus  transformed  it  in  order  to  reconcile  it 
with  His  existence  in  human  nature. 


1.  Henoch  XLVI,  1  and  2.  (Martin's  Translationy. 

2.  Die  Predigt  Jesu,  2nd  ed.,  p.  175. 


THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL    MESSIANISM  301 

We  here  put  our  finger  upon  a  difficulty  which  is 
insoluble  in  the  Eschatological  system.  The  Son  of 
Man,  such  as  the  parables  of  Henoch  present  him, 
is  the  main  piece  of  the  Eschatological  machinery; 
he  must  come  only  in  glory,  at  the  same  time  as 
does  the  reign.  Jesus  was  not,  then,  the  Son  of 
Man  in  this  sense.  And  nevertheless  He  was 
already  the  Son  of  Man  before  performing  the 
glorious  functions  of  this  personage.  In  His  testi- 
mony before  the  Sanhedrin  He  retained  of  the  Son 
of  Man  the  future  heavenly  glory,  corresponding 
with  the  supernatural  glory  which  Daniel  suggested; 
and  it  is  already  as  Son  of  Man  that  He  forgave 
sins  ^  and  that  He  was  master  of  the  Sabbath.  ^ 
But  He  also  called  Himself  the  Son  of  Man  in  speak- 
ing of  His  sufferings  and  death.  ^  He  who  veiled 
His  title  of  Messias,  openly  designated  Himself  Son 
of  Man.  Had  it  been  a  current  messianic  title  still 
more  glorious  than  that  of  Son  of  David,  he  would 
not  have  done  so.  H  He  had,  the  multitudes 
would  have  had  to  pronounce  upon  his  messianic 
claim;  the  High  Priest  would  not  have  had  to  seek 
witnesses  and  other  grievances.  Criticism  would 
escape  many  difficulties  if  it  kept  to  the  text  of 
St.  John  :  "  We  have  heard  out  of  the  Law  that 
Christ  abideth  forever;  and  how  sayest  thou  :  The 
Son  of  Man  must  be  lifted  up?  Who  is  this  Son  of 
Man?  "  *     The  people  of  Jerusalem,  then,  did  not 


1.  Mk.  II,  10. 

2.  Mk.  II,  28. 

3.  Mk.  VIII,  31. 

4.  Jn.  XII.  34. 


302  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

know  who  was  the  Son  of  Man.  Johannes  Weiss 
has  manifestly  given  way  to  the  rather  natural 
propensity  to  exaggerate  the  value  of  new  or  little 
studied  documents. 

The  one  who  was  expected  was  the  Messias,  son 
of  David.  ^  This  is  incontestably  the  tradition  of 
the  Masters  of  Israel,  connected  with  the  Old 
Testament  by  all  the  Rabbinic  writings,  by  the 
apocalypses  of  Baruch  and  Esdras,  by  the  daily 
prayer  of  Judaism  in  the  time  of  Jesus,  by  the 
Psalms  of  Solomon  which  are  earlier  than  He. 
And  this  tradition  agrees  with  the  acclamations 
addressed  to  the  Savior  at  the  time  of  His  entrance 
into  Jerusalem  :  "  Hosannah !  Blessed  is  He  that 
Cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord !  Blessed  be  the 
reign  that  cometh,  of  our  Father  David!  Hosan- 
nah !  "  ^  We  have  at  the  same  time  in  this  passage 
the  reign  and  the  monarch,  a  temporal  reign  to  be 
inaugurated  and  the  Son  of  David.  This  text 
alone  would  be  enough  to  prove  that  public  opinion 
did  not  look  for  a  sudden  coming  of  a  reign  of  abso- 
lute justice  with  the  Son  of  Man  from  heaven.  We 
are  here  on  the  ground  of  history  and  of  national 
traditions.  In  the  name  of  criticism  these  tradi- 
tions are  relegated  to  the  background.  They  are 
supposed  to  have  given  way  to  the  chimerical 
elucubrations  of  a  few  visionaries  —  visionaries, 
however,  who  are  represented  as  perfectly  cool- 
blooded,  and   literary   men  full  of  artifices  rather 

1.  Jn.  VII,  27  :  "  When  the  Christ  cometh  no  man  knoweth 
whence  he  is,  "  presupposes  an  unknown  birth-place,  but 
not  a  heavenly  manifestation  without  human  existence. 

2.  Mk.  XI,  9  f. 


THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL    MESSIANISM  303 

than  really  contemplative !  Much  courage  is 
required  by  Schweitzer  when  he  affirms  that  the 
people  acclaimed  Jesus  as  Son  of  David  without 
acclaiming  Him  as  Messias.  But  this  logic  is 
necessary  to  the  system,  which  needs  a  future 
Messias,  a  Son  of  Man  to  come  with  the  reign,  while 
the  Messias,  son  of  David,  Hving  on  earth  is  a  Mes- 
sias who  has  already  come.  Pilate,  in  his  weak- 
ness, condemned  a  Messias  whom  he  judged  inof- 
fensive; but  the  priests  had  handed  Him  over 
as  one  who  pretended  to  be  king  of  the  Jews, 
and  not  as  the  Son  of  Man  who  had  been 
announced.  The  multitude,  it  is  true,  long 
hesitated.  At  the  moment  of  the  confession  of 
Peter,  no  decision  had  been  reached;  the  mission 
and  the  existence  of  Jesus  were  really  too  modest. 
And,  strange  though  it  may  appear  to  us,  the  texts 
of  that  time  did  not  promise  that  the  Messias  would 
work  miracles.  It  was  too  little  for  him,  for  his 
part  was  more  glorious  than  that  of  an  Elias  or  an 
Eliseus.  Some  took  Jesus  for  Elias.  He  Himself 
did  nothing  to  obtain  recognition.  He  had, 
rather,  resolved  not  to  manifest  Himself  to  the 
people.  His  principal  office  was  to  die ;  why  should 
He  have  over-excited  hopes  in  which  the  pure  glory 
of  God  held  such  little  place?  How,  then,  did  the 
mysterious  news  get  to  the  masses?  We  do  not 
know.  Perhaps  some  of  the  apostles  spoke. 
Perhaps  at  Jericho  and  Jerusalem  the  Davidic 
origin  was  known.  Could  a  son  of  David,  the 
author  of  so  many  miracles,  be  other  than  the  Mes- 
sias? The  rest  of  his  actions  might  come  after- 
wards.    The  belief  grew  and  became  general.     Je- 

20 


304  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIA4NITY 

sus  lent  Himself  to  the  people's  acclamations^ 
apparently  to  fulfil  the  Scriptures,  and  that  Israel' 
might  recognize  her  king,  were  it  only  for  a  few 
days. 

As  for  the  disciples,  living  in  the  intimacy  of  the 
Master,  the  astonishing  thing  would  be  that  they 
should  not  acknowledge  Him  as  Messias.  His 
humility  was  deep;  He  had  His  eyes  ever  fixed 
upon  His  Father,  and  sought  only  His  glory;  but 
He  ruled  over  the  elements,  over  sickness,  over 
death,  over  demons,  and  if  He  recommended  to  His 
disciples  fasting  and  prayer  before  undertaking 
to  exorcise.  He  himself  did  not  look  to  prayer  for 
His  own  power.  The  things  of  God  were  not 
revealed  to  Him;  He  lived  in  them;  the  gift  of 
miracles  was  not  granted  to  Him,  He  granted  it  to 
others;  He  dared  to  forgive  sins.  St.  Matthew  tells 
us  that  Peter  proclaimed  Him  not  only  Christ,  but 
Son  of  God.  St.  Matthew,  too,  is  alone  in  recording 
Jesus'  congratulations  to  Peter  upon  that  revelation 
of  heaven.  This  felicitation  must  refer  to  the  name 
of  Son  of  God,  rather  than  to  that  of  Messias,  and, 
if  we  are  not  mistaken,  it  is  at  the  Transfiguration 
that  Peter  learned  the  mystery  through  the  words 
of  the  Father.  ^  But  even  at  Csesarea  Peter  does 
not  say  :  "  Thou  art  called  to  be  the  Messias,  "  but 
"  Thou  art  the  Messias.  "  And  when  the  High 
Priest  asks  Him  :  "  Art  thou  the  Christ,  the  son  of 
the  Blessed?  "  Jesus  says :  "  I  am.  "  H  He  adds  : 
"  And  you  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting  on  the 


1.  On  this  order  of  events  see  Commentaire  de  saint  Marc, 
p.  218. 


THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL    MESSIANISM  305 

right  hand  of  the  Power,  and  coming  upon  the 
clouds  of  heaven,  "  ^  He  refers  at  the  same  time  to 
Psalm  CX  and  to  Daniel.  Now  He  had  ab-eady 
drawn  the  attention  of  the  Scribes  to  this  Psalm  CX : 
*"'  How  do  the  Scribes  say  that  Christ  is  the  son  of 
David?  David  himself  has  said  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  :  The  Lord  said  to  my  Lord,  sit  thou  at  my 
right  hand  until  I  make  thy  enemies  thy  footstool, 
David  therefore  himself  calleth  him  Lord,  and  whence 
is  he  his  son.  "  ^  The  scribes  had  not  been  able  to 
answer.  And  none  of  them  would  have  been  able 
to  say,  either,  how^  the  son  of  David  could  be  the 
Son  of  Man  coming  upon  the  clouds.  When 
solemnly  questioned  by  the  High  Priest,  Jesus 
declares  that  He  is  the  Messias,  that  is,  according 
to  the  necessary  meaning  of  the  w^ord,  the  son  of 
David,  but  at  the  same  time  that  He  is  that  one 
whom  David  saw  at  the  right  hand  of  his  Lord  and 
called  Lord,  and  that  He  is  the  Son  of  Man  of 
Daniel.  He  says  this,  knowing  that  the  declaration 
will  cost  Him  His  Hfe,  —  that  Hfe  which  was  to  be 
immolated  to  furnish  a  ransom. 

Here  only  do  w^e  learn  from  the  lips  of  Jesus 
Himself  the  whole  secret  of  His  messianic  con- 
sciousness. The  Eschatologists  do  Him  the  favor 
of  taking  literally  His  affirmations  of  a  supernatural 
vocation.  They  do  not  go  far  enough.  And  let 
the  Liberals  recognize  that  their  wise  Jesus,  their 
ever-esteemed  teacher  of  ethics,  w^hose  true  history 
has  been  told  bv  St.  Mark,  did  not  only  attribute  to 


1.  Mk.  XIV,  62. 

2.  Mk.  .XII,  35  f. 


306  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

Himself  the  glory  of  Son  of  Man,  but  acted  as  Son  of 
God  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word.  This  is  a  fact 
according  to  St.  John,  according  to  St.  Luke, 
according  to  St.  Matthew,  and  also  according  to 
St.  Mark.  Wrede  was  right  in  saying  that  this 
tradition  must  be  taken  or  left,  but  that  it  cannot 
be  made  to  yield  the  modern  psychology  of  a 
Liberal  Jesus. 

We  take  it  such  as  it  is,  and  we  learn  from  Jesus 
what  the  messianic  hopes  did  mean.  They  did  not 
correspond  to  the  dreams  of  the  Apocrypha,  nor  to 
the  rabbinic  theology  which  had  emptied  them  of 
their  Divine  contents,  but  they  did  correspond  with 
the  predictions  of  the  Prophets  of  Israel.  These 
great  delineations  of  Scripture,  which  no  one 
had  been  able  to  reconcile  with  one  another,  which 
appeared  to  be  parallel,  meet  in  Jesus,  as  in  the 
infinite.  ^ 

The  Old  Testament  had  in  divers  ways  pointed  to 
Him  who  was  to  be  the  agent  of  the  future  salva- 
tion. First,  the  Savior  was  God  Himself.  Very 
many  passages  had  announced  that  God  would 
come  in  person  to  save  His  people.  The  salvation 
of  Israel  would  be  an  extraordinary  manifestation 
of  the  power  and  goodness  of  the  Lord,  who  would 
work  wonderful  works;  and  the  peoples  were  to  be 
associated  with  Israel  to  render  Him  glory.  On  the 
other  hand,  Israel  awaited  a  king,  son  of  David, 
who  would  reestablish  David's  throne  and  rule  over 
an  empire  vaster  than  David's.  Isaias  called  Him 
Emmanuel,  God  with  us,  and  even  Hero-God.     The 

1.  Le  Messianisme,  p.  258  f. 


THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL    MESSIANISM  307 

second  part  of  the  Book  of  Isaias  pictured  the  suffer- 
ings of  a  servant  of  God  who  would  be  the  salvation 
of  Jacob  and  the  light  of  the  nations,  a  mild  preach- 
er, like  unto  the  sheep  which  is  immolated,  and 
one  whose  death  would  be  a  source  of  salvation. 
Finally,  Daniel  had  foretold  that  God  would  inter- 
vene, to  establish  His  reign  and  that  of  the  saints, 
giving  a  glimpse  in  heaven  of  a  supernatural  being 
like  unto  a  man. 

How  could  all  this  come  into  accord?  Who  then 
would  be  the  Savior?  No  one  could  have  said. 
We  know  through  Jesus. 


NINTH  LECTURE 

JUDEO-PAGAN    SYNCRETISM. 

I 

The  theory  that  Christianity 
is  an  amalgamation  of  judaism  and  paganism. 


The  method  of  the  Eschatologists  comes  near  to 
the  scientific  method  employed  in  historical  research 
and  at  the  same  time  to  the  exegetical  method  of 
the  Church.  I  speak  of  method  and  exegesis,  not 
of  conclusions.  Good  method  requires  that  one 
should  be  on  his  guard  against  the  danger  of 
making  a  figure  of  history  conform  to  the  ideal  of 
later  times;  that  one  should  be  ready  to  recognize 
religious  principles  at  the  origin  of  a  religious 
movement.  The  scholar  gives  heed  to  his  texts, 
and  in  order  to  understand  them  he  seeks  /to 
inform  himself  concerning  the  ideas  of  the  times  in 
which  they  appeared.  Up  to  this  point  we  go 
along  with  the  Eschatologists.  But  we  do  not 
believe  in  determinism  in  history.  Country,  period 
and  race  are  not  everything,  whatever  Taine  may 
think.  If  the  texts  prove  that  a  man  of  genius 
impressed  upon  his  time  a  new  direction  or  gave  it  a 
new  impulse,  the  historian  should  admit  the  fact. 
Neither  Johannes  Weiss  nor  Albert  Schweitzer  have 


JUDEO-PAGAN    SYJfCRETISM  309 

been  willing  to  do  this  completely.  Schweitzer 
boasts  that  the  Eschatological  system  is  onesided 
in  the  support  it  gives  to  the  first  of  the  two  alter- 
natives, eschatological  or  non-eschatological;  and 
onesidedness  is  our  chief  grievance  against  it,  as  it 
has  been  against  all  the  other  systems  with  which 
we  have  dealt.  Onesidedness  has  given  rise  in  this 
case  to  difficulties  not  experienced  by  the  Liberal 
conception. 

In  bowing  before  Jesus  as  the  unique  teacher  of 
an  ethical  system  which  is  useful  to  every  man  and 
which  reaches  far  beyond  the  narrow  horizon  of 
Judaism;  in  rendering  with  Jesus  to  the  Father  the 
homage  which  men  must  render  who  at  all  realize 
the  price  of  their  soul,  Liberal  critics  have  shown, 
by  their  own  example,  how  a  religion  of  Jewish 
origin  was  able  to  succeed  when  brought  to  the 
attention  of  the  world.  But  the  Eschatologists 
have  given  up  these  elements  which  explain  the 
success  of  the  religion  of  Christ.  Jesus,  they  say, 
shared  in  the  error  of  His  people  anent  a  miraculous 
reign  of  God  which  was  to  come,  and  which  did  not 
come.  He  was  crucified  by  Pilate  for  having  made 
Himself  the  Messias  of  revolutionaries  or  of  visio- 
naries. But  what  charm  could  this  doctrine  and 
this  personality  have  for  pagans,  who  despised 
the  Jew  though  they  were  frequently  drawn  to  his 
religion?  Was  it  not  compromising  the  worship 
of  one  God  to  connect  it  with  Jewish  messianism? 
And  nevertheless  the  conversion  of  the  Greco* 
Roman  world  is  a  fact.     What  was  its  cause? 

It  was,  we  have  been  told  in  France,  by  the 
representatives  of  a  new  School,  that '"  the  national 


310  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

hope  of  Jewish  messianism  was  transformed  into 
a  mystery  of  universal  salvation.  "  Or  again, 
"  All  well  weighed,  the  new  reHgion  owed  to  pagan 
mysticism  almost  as  much  as  to  Judaism,  and  the 
pagan  world  found  itself  at  ease  therein  because 
its  spirit  had  first  entered  into  it.  "  ^  The  first  of 
these  propositions  might  be  understood  in  a  true 
sense;  the  second  is  a  gratuitous  insult  to  Christia- 
nity. But  it  is  in  Germany  that  we  must  look  for 
the  origin  and  the  supports  of  the  new  system. 

The  hypothesis  of  a  syncretism,  of  a  fusion  of 
pagan  and  Christian  elements,  offered  itself  as  a 
way  of  getting  out  of  the  bhnd  alley  into  which  the 
Eschatologists  had  thrown  themselves.  It  pre- 
sented itself  at  the  same  time  as  an  extension  of 
their  methods.  They  had  rightly  brought  into  the 
debate,  alongside  of  the  writings  comprised  in  the 
restricted  Canon  of  Protestantism,  the  books 
recognized  as  inspired  by  the  Church,  and  still 
other  books  which  came  from  those  spheres  where 
Judaism  was  in  close  touch  with  a  foreign  spirit. 
But  the  field  of  study  was  to  be  extended  even 
farther;  points  of  comparison  must  be  sought  in  all, 
religions,  to  learn  in  what  Christianity  differs  from 
them,  in  what  it  resembles  them,  what  it  has 
perhaps  borrowed  from  them,  and,  in  fine,  to 
determine  scientifically,  its  origin  and  nature.  This 
is  what  German  searchers  are  now  doing  with  as 
much  zest  and  hopefulness  as  if  nobody  had  ever 
before  opened  the  New  Testament.  This  time 
they  are  certainly  advancing  towards  the  light  I 

1.  LoiSY,  La  Religion,  pp.  136,  138. 


JUDEO-PAGAN    SYNCRETISM  311 

Mr.  Windisch  wrote  last  year,  rightly,  though  too 
emphatically  :  "  For  more  than  ten  years  the  deep 
study  {Erforschung,  one  might  think  of  the  explora- 
tion of  some  dark  continent)  of  the  New  Testament 
finds  itself  once  more  under  the  sign  of  history  of 
religions.  "  ^  More  than  any  other,  perhaps,  this 
school  wishes  to  be  qualified  by  a  name,  that  of 
religiongescliichtlich,  which  expresses  the  idea  that 
its  specialty  is  to  use  the  history  of  rehgions  in  the 
exegesis  of  the  New  Testament.  Dupuis  used  to 
compare  Christian  dogma  to  "  the  ancient  and 
primitive  doctrine  of  the  Magi  "  or  to  ''  the  mystical 
science  of  the  disciples  of  Zoroaster,  "  but  nowadays 
we  hear  of  the  religion  of  savages,  of  the  worship 
of  trees  and  of  animals,  in  a  word,  of  fetichism, 
which  the  new  historians  are  able  to  find  in  the  New 
Testament. 

You  do  not  expect  me  to  set  forth  in  detail  the 
beUefs  and  institutions  which  have  been  found  more 
or  less  analogous  to  those  of  our  religion.  One 
question  dominates  all  others.  Did  Christianity 
succeed  among  the  pagans  because  it  had  borrowed 
from  them,  at  least  in  part,  the  spirit  of  paganism, 
and  become  a  mystery  like  the  Pagan  mysteries,  or, 
more  simply,  a  mystery-rehgion  like  the  other 
mystery-religions  ? 

At  the  beginning  of  these  researches  everything 
lent  itself  to  comparison,  every  resemblance  meant 
borrowing,  and  no  hesitation  was  felt  about  render- 
ing the  resemblance  more  striking  by  applying 
Christian  names  to  the  most  disparate  religious 

1.  Theologisck  Tijdschrijt,  1917,  p.  228. 


312  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

acts    :   "    Isiac    vespers,    "    "    Mithraic    commu- 
nion, "  etc. 

One  might  form  with  these  extravagant  opinions 
a  florilegium  or  a  joke-book.  But  it  would  not  be 
very  useful.  It  is  better  to  keep  to  the  principal 
points  of  mysticism  and  to  study  the  system  in  its 
most  illustrious  representatives,  who  affect  a 
certain  moderation.  Here  is,  for  instance,  the  pro- 
gram of  Professor  Wilhelm  Bousset,  who  is  a  leading 
figure  :  "  No  critic  will  maintain  that  Paul  read  the 
Hermetic  writings,  or,  more  generally,  that  Chris- 
tianity depends  on  such  or  such  a  particular  mys- 
tery-rehgion...  It  is  a  question  rather  of  the 
knowledge  of  great  spiritual  ensembles,  of  realizing 
that  the  spiritual  atmosphere  was  in  some  way 
determined  by  those  manifestations  in  the  midst  of 
which  Christianity  grew  up,  and  which  in  great 
part  render  its  development  intelligible.  ."  ^  At 
first  sight  this  appears  less  serious  than  formal 
comparisons  on  particular  points.  But  Bousset 
does  not  understand  it  so.  He  believes  he  is 
getting  to  the  root  of  matters  :  "  On  the  other  hand 
it  is  not  question  of  analogies  or  parallel  cases  which 
are  relatively  not  very  conclusive,  or  only  interest- 
ing, but  rather  is  it  question  of  ascertaining  that  a 
piety  which  had  developed  upon  its  own  soil,  has 
become  amalgamated  with  the  Gospel  of  Jesus,  in 
such  a  way  as  to  constitute  with  it  a  new  formation, 
which  would  remain  unintelligible  to  us,  if  we  did 
not  know  that  piety.  "  ^ 


1.  Kyrios  Christos,  p.  xiii. 

2.  Ihid. 


JUDEO-PAGAN    SYNCRETISM  313 

These  terms  are  very  indefinite;  but  we  see 
elsewhere  that  the  common  points,  or  rather  those 
at  which  Christianity  is  supposed  to  be  vitally 
connected  with  the  pagan  piety,  are,  in  the  doctrine 
of  St.  Paul,  the  theory  of  the  Spirit,  and  that  of 
the  sacraments,  especially  of  Baptism  and  the 
Eucharist. 

Once  more  we  pass  from  the  Gospel  to  St.  Paul. 
We  must  see  whether  his  writings  support  the 
contention  that  he  added  to  the  Gospel  of  Jesus 
important  elements,  the  very  spirit  of  pagan  piety. 
It  is  thus,  Bousset  holds,  that  he  succeeded  with  the 
Gentiles,  and  founded  Christianity,  the  meaning  of 
which  would  be  :  adaptation  of  the  Gospel  to  the 
piety  of  the  oriental  world  when  this  world  had 
become  Greco-Roman. 

This  proposition  is,  indeed,  very  offensive. 
Permit  me,  how^ever,  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  upholders  of  this,  the  latest  system 
made  in  Germany,  give  up  St.  Paul  to  the  Catholics. 
St.  Paul,  the  rampart  of  Protestantism,  the  sure 
refuge  from  the  idolatries  of  Rome,  the  Apostle  of 
justification  by  faith,  the  Paul  of  Luther  in  a  word, 
is  here  declared  to  have  introduced  into  the  Gospel 
supernatural  grace,  the  sacramental  action  of 
Baptism  ex  opere  operato,  the  real  presence  of  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  Eucharist, 
and  that  not  with  the  bread  but  in  such  a  way  that 
the  faithful  Christian  feeds  upon  the  body  and 
blood  of  a  God  1  This  does  not  mean  that  St.  Paul's 
teaching  is  believed.  He  is  rather  blamed  for 
having  changed  the  nature  of  the  Gospel.  But,  at 
any  rate,  he  is  explained  literally,  as  the  Church 


314  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

has  always  explained  him,  as  the  Council  of  Trent 
understood  him. 

You  see  now  why  I  thought  best  to  begin  the 
review  of  German  exegesis  with  Luther  and  not 
with  Reimarus;  its  last  developments  bring  us 
right  back  to  the  days  when  Luther  began  to 
explain  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  independently 
of  Catholic  tradition. 

As  for  this  last  system,  which  finds  the  spirit  of 
paganism  in  St.  Paul,  it  will  be  easy  to  show  that 
it  reads  into  his  Epistles  all  the  paganism  it  finds 
therein. 


n 

The  doctrine  of  the  Spirit. 


And  first,  what  does  Professor  Bousset  think  of 
St.  PauFs  doctrine  of  the  Spirit?  This,  he  says,  is 
the  element  which  is  capital  in  Christianity,  which 
has  made  of  a  simply  moral  rehgion  a  supernatural 
religion.  Jesus  had  preached  penance  for  the 
remission  of  sins.  There  is  nothing  mysterious  in 
this  doctrine.  After  His  death,  the  first  Christians 
found  themselves  in  contact  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 
They  spoke  in  tongues,  they  healed,  they  felt 
themselves  under  the  influence  of  the  spirit  of 
prophecy;  the  meetings  passed  in  a  sort  of  religious 
exaltation.  There  was  nothing  extraordinary  in 
such  experiences,  Bousset  remarks;  in  the  begin- 
nings  of   a  religion   all  minds   are   overwrought. 


JUDEO-PAGAN  SYNCRETISM         315 

Greek  and  Oriental  paganism  knew  of  such  phe- 
nomena, and  so  had  even  the  Hebrews,  with  their 
schools  of  prophets,  prophesying  to  the  sound  of 
the  flute  or  the  tambourine.  ^  No  need,  then,  for 
the  critic  to  explain  by  borrowing  what  is  perfectly 
spontaneous  in  favorable  conditions.  But  what  is 
new  is  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  permanence  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  baptized  person.  He  speaks  of  it 
constantly.  According  to  Holsten,  ^  whose  calcu- 
lation Bousset  accepts,  Paul  uses  the  word  pneuma 
to  designate  the  human  spirit  twelve  times ;  he  uses 
it  to  designate  the  supernatural  Spirit  of  God  given 
to  the  Christian  in  ninety-one  cases.  If  the  words 
of  Bousset  are  here  to  be  taken  in  their  proper  sense, 
he  does  not  speak  of  a  mere  dweUing  of  the  Spirit 
of  God  in  the  soul;  the  spirit  is  Divine  in  its  origin, 
but  it  is  nevertheless  given,  added  to  human  nature ; 
in  other  words,  St.  Paul  expresses  the  Catholic  doc- 
trine of  grace,  which  is  a  participation  of  the  Divine 
nature.  The  critic  tells  us  :  "  What  is  highest  and 
best  in  man,  that  without  which  he  is  not  truly  a 
man,  or  at  least  is  not  of  any  worth  in  the  sight  of 
God,  is  nevertheless  something  foreign  to  him, 
given  him  from  above  through  favor,  added  from 
without.  "  ^  These  words  are  not  so  precise  as  the 
language  of  our  theologians ;  Paul  has  nowhere  said 
that  man  is  not  truly  man  without  the  Spirit. 
But  this  other  statement  is  still  more  exaggerated  : 
The  ego  of  man  is  nothing,  the    powers  which 


1.  I  Sam.  X,  5. 

2.  In  Bousset,  Kyrios  Christos,  p.  130,^note  2. 

3.  Kyrios  Christos,  p.  133. 


316  THE    MEANING    OP    CHRISTIANITY  ' 

determine  the  ego,  whether  it  be  the  Spirit  or  the 
flesh,  is  everything.  "  ^  Here  again,  we  have  an 
einseitig,  i.  e.,  a  unilateral  system !  The  text, 
which  is  used  to  justify  it  is  taken  from  the  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians;  "  I'hey  (the  Spirit  and  the  flesh) 
are  opposed  one  to  the  other,  that  ye  may  not  do 
that  which  ye  would.  "  ^  Obscure  texts,  with  very 
strong  expressions,  have  always  been  favorites 
with  innovators.  One  should  really  not  leave  out 
of  account  St.  Paul's  very  numerous  appeals  to  free 
will.  We  note  the  exaggeration  in  passing;  but 
what  we  would  here  point  out  is  that  Bousset  has 
assuredly  not  attenuated  the  action  in  our  souls  of 
the  Spirit  given  in  baptism,  and  which  dwells  in 
us.  And  as  he  is  only  one  of  many  who  share  this 
view,  Lutherans  will  have  to  defend  themselves 
against  new  adversaries. 

But,  asks  the  historian  of  religions,  did  Paul  sim- 
ply create  this  doctrine  ?  May  he  not  have  drawn  it 
from  some  other  source?  The  natural  source  to 
which  we  might  look  is  the  teaching  of  Jesus;  but 
access  to  the  thought  of  Jesus  on  this  point  is 
closed  to  those  who  reject  the  account  of  his  dis- 
courses given  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  Bousset  first 
cites  Philo.  But  Philo  was  a  Jew,  and  besides  he 
has  nothing  characteristic  to  offer.  A  more  prom- 
ising source  would  seem  to  be  opened  up  in  the 
doctrine  concerning  the  nous,  which  in  Greek  means 
spirit;  its  action  resembles  somewhat  that  of  the 
pneuma,  which  also  is  spirit.     The  description  given 


1.  Kyrios  Christos,  p.   133. 

2.  Gal.  V,  17. 


JUDEO-PAGAN  SYNCRETISM         317 

of  it  by  Bousset  is  a  conglomerate  of  traits  scattered 
in  what  are  called  the  Hermetic  writings. 

We  possess  a  collection  of  religious  and  philosoph- 
ic considerations  which  are  supposed  to  contain 
the  revelation  of  the  god  Hermes,  the  Egyptian 
Thoth.  The  collection  is  hard  to  date.  Some 
critics  maintain  that  parts  of  it  are  anterior  to 
the  first  century  or  belong  to  that  century;  but 
this  is  contested  by  Mr.  KroU,  a  very  indepen- 
dent critic.  ^  There  are  no  traces  of  Christian 
influences,  it  is  said;  but  Bousset  recognizes 
here  and  there  the  influence  of  the  Greek  Old 
Testament.  Finally,  the  work  is  the  only  known 
one  of  its  kind.  Why  see  the  expression  of  Greek 
piety  in  this  very  confused,  and  somewhat 
pedantic,  elucubration  ?  Its  very  scope  is  not 
clear ;  it  is  not  certain  that  its  aim  was  to  harmonize 
Egyptian  traditions  w4th  Greek  cosmogonic  sys- 
tems. H  these  writings  had  been  much  read,  if 
their  so-called  piety  had  been  widespread,  other 
traces  of  it  would  be  found.  There  are  none.  The 
Oracula  Chaldaica  and  Gnosticism  ^  which  are 
brought  up  as  reinforcements  are  admittedly 
influenced  by  Judaism  and  Christianity.  Is  Bous- 
set, then,  really  justified  in  concluding  that  the 

Pauline  doctrine  of  the  Pneuma  with  all  its 
consequences  forms  part  of  a  great  whole  ?  "  and 
that  ''  Paul  followed  in  his  misty  anthropological 

1.  Pauly-Wissowa,  article  Hermes  Trismegistos.  Kroll 
would  not  consent  to  go  back  earlier  than  the  ii  century  and 
regards  the  in  century  as  the  date  of  its  principal  elements. 

2.  We  may  add  the  Oracula  Hellenica  published  by  Mgr  Ba- 
tiffol,  in  the  Revue  bihlique,  1916,  pp.  177  ff. 


318  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

pessimism,  in  his  supernatural,  dualistic  formation 
of  the  doctrine  of  salvation,  a  tendency  of  the  time 
which  had  already  taken  hold  of  many  minds?  "  ^ 

There  is  a  much  more  simple  solution,  it  is  that 
of  Paul  himself,  who  affirms  that  he  received  from 
God  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  Spirit. 
At  the  very  least  he  believed  that  the  messianic 
prophecies  were  fulfilled  in  Jesus,  and  the  principal 
one  of  these  was  relative  to  the  effusion  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  He  expressly  connected  himself  with  the 
Old  Testament  in  replacing  the  spirit  df  servitude 
by  the  Spirit  of  adoption.  ^  Where  can  one  find 
in  the  Hermetic  writings  this  relation  between  the 
Spirit  given  and  the  quality  of  children  of  God, 
which' in  St.  Paul  is  so  close,  and  which  makes  of 
the  gift  of  the  Spirit  a  means  of  union  with  Christ? 

Where  do  we  find  in  these  Hermetic  writings  the 
opposition  between  the  spirit  and  the  flesh,  not  the 
material  flesh,  but  that  flesh  which  is  human  nature 
considered  as  opposed  to  grace?  This  point, 
however,  is  what  constitutes  the  supernatural  — 
dualistic  character  of  the  doctrine  of  Paul.  He  had 
under  his  eyes,  it  is  conceded,  the  manifestations 
of  the  Spirit  in  the  primitive  Church ;  and  he  could 
read  this  passage  of  Ezechiel :  "  And  I  will  give  you 
a  new  heart  and  put  in  you  a  new  spirit,  and  I  will 
take  away  the  stony  heart  of  your  flesh,  and  give 
you  a  heart  of  flesh,  and  I  will  put  in  you  my 
spirit.  "  ^    There  is  more  harmony  between  the 


1.  L.  I.,  p.  141,  f. 

2.  Rom.  VIII,  15. 

3.  Ez.  XXXVI,  26  f.,  according  to  the  Greek  translation. 


JUDEO-PAGAN    SYNCRETISM  319 

texts  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament^,  than  between 
St.  Paul  and  the  writings  of  Hermes.  But  it  is 
useless  to  compare  the  two  doctrines  very  closely; 
Bousset  has  taken  care  to  tell  us  that  he  does  not 
claim  that  Paul  read  these  writings.  To  come 
immediately  to  the  main  point,  we  may  confi- 
dently assert  that  St.  Paul  and  the  Hermetic  writer 
or  writers  do  not  breathe  the  same  atmosphere, 
because  the  nous  of  Hermes  is  first  of  all  a  revela- 
tion, a  light  granted  to  privileged  persons,  whereas 
the  pneuma  of  St.  Paul  is  the  love  of  God  poured 
into  our  hearts.  ^  The  doctrine  of  the  pneuma  is  an 
organic  whole,  a  doctrine  of  life,  whereas  Herme- 
tism  painfully  elucubrates  subtle  speculations  which 
are  incapable  of  founding  religious  belief,  much  less 
popular  piety.  Ah !  exclaims  Bousset,  if  we  had 
anything  but  fragments  of  the  Neo-Pythagorean 
literature,  we  would  likely  find  it  related  to  Her- 
metism,  we  would  show  the  place  of  Hermetism  in 
a  great  spiritual  ensemble.  Why  then,  we  may 
ask,  is  this  piety  absent  from  the  Life  of  ApoUonius 
of  Thy  ana?  And  if  we  did  find  anything  related 
to  Hermetism,  we  would  still  be  in  the  regions 
frequented  only  by  philosophers.  It  is  because  we 
can  easily  determine  what  the  pseudo-Dionysius 
the  Areopagite  owes  to  philosophy  that  we  appre- 
ciate so  well  how  far  St.  Paul  is  from  containing 
such  an  amalgamation.  His  doctrine  of  the  Spirit  is 
but  the  coincidence  of  the  ancient  prophecies  and 
the  historical  part  of  the  manifestation  of  Jesus 
and  of  the  Spirit.     And  there  is  not  the  shghtest 

1.  Rom.  V,  5. 

'  21 


320  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

indication  that  he  altered  on  this  point  the  faith 
of  the  earHer  apostles.  These  apostles,  for  their 
part,  had  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  the  fulfilment 
of  a  promise  of  Jesus  consigned  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  in  St.  Matthew, 
and  in  St.  Luke.  ^  These  documents  are  at  least  as 
reliable  as  the  Hermetic  writings  of  which  it  can- 
not even  be  affirmed  that  they  express  the  belief 
of  a  small  group  of  behevers.  ^ 

This  is  not  a  mystery  religion,  it  is  not  a  religion 
at  all,  nor  a  form  of  popular  piety. 


Ill 
Pagan  initiations  and  Christian  Baptism. 

The  quest  has  been  carried  on  elsewhere.  We 
are  on  firmer  ground,  and  in  the  religious  domain, 
with  the  mysteries  and  initiations. 

The  effusion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  so  clear ly^^the 
characteristic  of  messianic  times  and  the.'  gift 
brought  by  the  Messias,  that  John  the  Baptist, 
speaking  of  Him  who  was  coming,  had  said  :  "  I 
have  baptized  you  with  water.  He  will  baptize  you 
in  the  Holy  Ghost.  "  ^    Whatever  may  have  been 

1.  Jn.  XIV,  24,  Acts,  i,  5,  Mt.  x,  19  f.,  Lk.  xii,  11  f. 

2.  Kroll  (Pauly-Wissowa,  art.  cited)  refuses  to  believe 
in  the  existence  of  communities  of  adorers  of  the  nous  (reason) 
and  of  Anthropos  (man),  postulated  so  fancifully  by  Reit- 
zenstein,  and  no  liturgy  can  be  found  in  the  Hermetic  writ- 
ings; they  are  simply  literary  productions. 

3.  Mk.  I,  8  cf.,  Mt.  Ill,  11  and  Lk.  iii,  16. 


JUDEO-PAGAN    SYNCRETISM  321 

the  precise  meaning  attached  to  these  words  by 
John  the  Baptist,  it  is  evident  that  the  EvangeUsts 
understood  them  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in 
Christian  baptism.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  St.  Paul, 
though  he  has  not  the  same  formula.  He  writes 
to  the  Romans  :  "  We  that  are  dead  to  sin,  how 
shall  we  live  any  longer  therein?  Know  ye  not 
that  all  we,  who  are  baptized  in  Christ  Jesus,  have 
been  baptized  in  his  death?  We  have  been  buried 
together  with  him  by  baptism  (to  unite  ourselves) 
with  his  death...  Now  if  we  are  dead  with  Christ,  we 
believe  that  we  shall  live  with  him...  Reckon  that 
you  are  dead  to  sin,  but  alive  unto  God  in  Christ 
Jesus.  "  ^  And  elsewhere  :  "  But  you  are  not  in 
the  flesh,  but  in  the  spirit,  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  dwell  in  you...  "  ^  The  Spirit  of  God  who  is 
given  us  that  we  may  be  adopted  sons,  and  thus 
brothers  of  the  natural  Son  of  God,  dwells  in  us  the 
moment  we  are  dead  to  sin  and  begin  to  live  with 
Christ,  that  is  to  say,  at  the  moment  of  baptism. 

When  the  Catholic  Church  practices  infant 
baptism,  she  thinks  that  baptism  acts  by  itself,  and 
confers  grace.  She  can,  together  with  her  tradi- 
tion, allege  the  texts  just  quoted  in  favor  of  her 
practice.  This  is  what  we  learned  in  catechism; 
baptism  is  a  sacrament  which  works  of  its  own 
power,  ex  opere  operato.  Bad  will  on  the  part  of 
an  adult  may  indeed  be  an  obstacle  to  grace;  and 
desire  with  faith  may  obtain  grace.  But  these  are 
cases  to  be  solved  in  accordance  with  principles. 


1.  Rom.  VI,  2-11. 

2.  Rom.  VIII,  9. 


322  THE    MEANING    OF    CERISTIANITY 

and  they  change  nothing  in  the  typical  case  :: 
^^baptism  considered  in  its  essence  is  a  sensible  sign 
which  confers  grace  by  the  action  of  God.  Against 
this  doctrine  Protestantism  has  been  protesting 
since  the  days  of  Luther.  Luther  retained  baptism 
and  the  word  sacrament,  but,  once  he  had  laid 
down  the  principle  of  justification  by  faith  alone, 
without  the  granting  of  an  interior  grace,  baptism 
meant  little  for  him.  The  baptized  person  was 
freed  from  sin  Juridically;  he  was  justified  by  legal 
fiction,  nothing  more.  Sarcasm  used  to  be  heaped 
upon  the  Church,  charged  with  having  abandoned 
ithe  faith  of  the  Apostle  to  adopt  magical  rites,  in 
the  spirit  of  pagan  religions.  Such  taunts  had 
became  more  offensive  as  the  phenomena  of  magic 
became  better  known;  for  magic  has  come  to  mean 
superstitious  practices  condemned  by  religion,  or 
the  lowest  form  of  religion  among  savages. 

But  now  critics,  having  laid  aside  Protestant 
prejudice,  have  reahzed  that  Paul  taught  the  effi- 
cacy of  baptism.  According  to  him  it  is  a  true 
sacrament,  that  is,  it  has  a  physical  or  hyper- 
physical  action.  We  would  say,  a  real  and  super- 
natural action. 

This  thesis  was  set  forth  by  W.  Heitmiiller  in 
1903  before  "  The  Scientific  Association  of  Pas- 
tors, "  1  and  in  his  brochure  "  Baptism  and  Supper 
in  Paul.  "  ^  The  whole  history  of  religions  school 
applauded.     Still  more  striking  than  these  adhe- 


1.  Der  wissenschaftliche  Predigerverein. 

2.  Tauje  und  Abendmahl  bei  Paulus,  1903,  56  pp.  and  In 
Namen  Jesus,  1903,  347  pp. 


JUDEO-PAGAN    SYNCRETISM  323 

sions,  the  refutation  undertaken  by  Clemen  proves 
the  confusion  of  the  conservative  Lutheran  party. 
The  authority  of  St.  Paul  must  be  saved  at  any 
cost.  Clemen  contends  that  not  the  Apostle,  but 
the  Catholic  Church  of  the  year  200,  became  con- 
taminated by  magical  rites.  The  texts  mat/,  indeed, 
signify  the  sacramental  character  of  baptism,  ^  but 
a  man  like  Paul  would  not  have  fallen  into  this 
error,  incompatible  with  salvation  by  faith.  ■ —  We 
are  of  course  saved  by  faith-,  but  by  a  faith  which 
accepts  baptism  as  the  means  of  becoming  united 
to  Jesus  Christ.  And  if  one  may  explain  the  texts 
of  St.  Paul  in  accordance  with  the  practice  of  the 
Church,  must  one  not,  as  a  good  critic,  so  explain 
them  ?  For  St.  Paul  really  belonged  to  the  Church ; 
he  w^s  a  Church  authority.  It  is  hard,  at  any  rate, 
to  see  how  he  could,  if  he  would,  express  more 
strongly  the  reality  and  the  efficacy  of  the  Divine 
operation  in  baptism. 

His  words  are  so  strong  that  the  new  exegetes 
exaggerate  the  bearing  of  his  teaching.  They 
attribute  to  baptism  a  change  in  human  nature; 
her«  again  they  use  the  word  magic. 

Now,  I  find  this  surprising  on  their  part.  They 
know  how  to  discern  in  the  Canonical  writings  the 
least  shades  of  doctrine;  they  refuse  to  ascribe  to 
the  same  author  views  which  are  in  the  least  unlike. 
An  unconscious  redactor  is  ever  in  demand  to 
assume  responsibility  for  bracketing  together  such 
unlike  views.     Traces  of  Paulinism  in  St.  Mark  do 


1.    Der    Einfluss     der     Mysterienreligion    auf    das    dlteste 
Christenium,  1913,  p.  39. 


324  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

not  escape  them;  and  they  expunge  them  from  the 
primitive  catechesis.  And  these  perspicacious 
critics  give  the  same  names  to  the  sacraments  as 
to  the  operations  of  witches  and  fetichists  !  Have 
these  lynxes  been  changed  into  bats?  Many 
complaints  have  been  made  against  Scholastic 
distinctions;  but  the  distinction  of  concepts  is  at 
the  basis  of  every  comparison  and  consequently  of 
every  form  of  reasoning.  Here  the  confusion  comes 
from  the  word  "  physical.  "  Magic,  according  to 
its  adepts,  acts  as  does  nature.  Like  produces 
like.  Rain  is  obtained  after  a  long  dry  spell  by 
pouring  out  water,  or  by  drawing  tears  by  means  of 
torture  from  an  unfortunate  human  victim ;  a  heart 
is  softened  by  melting  wax,  etc.  And  it  is  because 
magic  relies  on  such  practices  that  it  is  condemned 
in  the  religions  of  civilized  peoples,  which  employ 
sacrifice  and  prayer  to  win  the  favor  of  the  gods. 

In  baptism  water  alone  does  nothing,  or  it 
washes.  What  is  effective,  is  a  Divine  power 
which  acts  through  the  sacrament.  And,  never- 
theless, its  action  is  physical,  in  the  sense  that  it 
belongs  to  the  domain  of  reality.  Sins  are  not 
merely  thought  to  be  wiped  away,  they  are  remit- 
ted; grace  is  not  a  juridical  fiction,  it  is  an  entity  — 
a  Divine  entity,  but  what  is  more  real  than  the 
Divine?  But  nature  is  not  changed.  Paul  knew 
it  well;  none  speaks  more  forcibly  of  the  struggle 
between  the  flesh  and  the  spirit  after  baptism. 

Christian  baptism  has,  then,  nothing  in  common 
with  magic.  It  does  not  act  like  a  natural  force 
nor  change  nature.  Our  historians  of  religions 
will  not  admit  this.     With  their  precipitate  logic 


JUDEO-PAGAN    SYNCRETISM  325 

they  declare  that  since  the  baptized  person  is  united 
to  the  risen  Christ,  he  can  no  longer  sin,  he  should 
not  even  die.  If  Paul,  as  it  is  granted  that  he  did, 
recoiled  from  these  extreme  conclusions,  it  is 
because  he  was  restrained  by  his  practical  sense. 
He  escaped  an  absurdity  only  thanks  to  an  incon- 
sistency. —  Let  it  then  be  proved  to  us  that  an 
action  of  God  cannot  be  real  without  transforming 
nature,  that  it  cannot  do  away  with  sin  without 
granting  the  gift  of  never  sinning  again,  that  it 
cannot  place  in  the  soul  the  germ  of  resurrection 
without  freeing  the  believer  from  death !  In  the 
meanwhile,  we  like  to  hear  the  historians  talk 
about  the  realism  of  St.  Paul,  though  we  can- 
not agree  with  Bousset  that  St.  Paul's  realism  is 
radical.  ^ 

The  texts  being  understood  as  if  they  were  the 
record  of  the  beliefs  of  savages,  Christian  baptism 
is  compared  to  the  different  baptisms  employed  in 
paganism.  I  do  not  know  that  a  pagan  origin  has 
been  found  for  the  fact  itself  of  immersion.  It  was 
practiced  amongst  the  Jews;  the  rite  of  John  the 
Baptist  was  no  novelty  for  them.  The  baptism  of 
Christians  is  a  transformation  of  that  of  John. 

What  is  new,  it  is  claimed,  is  that  Christian  bap- 
tism should  serve  as  an  initiation  into  a  religion 
or  a  mystery.  That  baptism  initiates  us  into  the 
Christian  life,  is  a  matter  of  faith.  But  is  it  as 
clear  that  pagan  baptisms  initiated  into  mysteries? 
It  cannot  be  seen  that  they  had  that  importance 


1.  Bousset,  Kyrios  Christos,  p.  163  :  Es  ist  als  wenn  Paulus 
sich  in  diesem  radikalen  Realismus  kaum  genugthun  konnte. 


326  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

in  the  mysteries  of  Eleusis,  nor  in  those  of  the 
Great  Mother  or  of  Isis.  The  text  of  Tertullian, 
strong  as  it  is,  has  not  this  meaning  :  "  Certainly 
in  the  Apolhnarian  and  Eleusinian  games  they  are 
bathed  (or  baptized),  and  they  pretend  to  do  it  to 
acquire  a  regeneration  and  impunity  for  their 
perjuries.  "^ 

Baptisms  would,  then,  have  had  as  their  purpose 
the  purification  of  the  soul.  Ritual  purification  is 
the  natural  symbolism  of  all  the  ancient  lustrations. 
And,  indeed,  the  symbohcal  connection  between 
the  washing  of  the  body  and  the  purification  of  the 
soul  rests  on  a  very  clear  metaphor ;  one  may  not 
speak  of  borrowing  when  things  present  them- 
selves naturally  to  the  mind.  But  purification 
is  not  initiation.  It  is  at  most  a  preliminary 
act. 

There  is  not  here  any  initiation  because  there  is 
no  union  with  a  God.  So  our  mythologists  go 
deeper  and  deduce  this  union  from  the  special 
meaning  of  the  Christian  rite,  namely,  union  with 
Christ  dying  and  rising,  which  recalls  to  them  the 
pagan  religion  of  a  God  suffering,  dying  and 
rising. 

Either  they  mean  nothing  at  all,  or  they  mean 
that  without  these  pagan  behefs  Christianity  would 
not  be  what  it  is. 

What,  then,  were  these  gods  which  suffered, 
died  and  rose  again?  They  have  cited  the  Baby- 
lonian Tammuz,  the  Syrian  Adonis,  Osiris  of  Egypt, 
Attis  of  Phrygia,  the  Greek  Dionysos  who  came 

1.  De  hapt.,  v. 


JUDEO-PAGAN    SYNCRETISM:  327' 

from  Thrace,  the  Dionysos  Zagreus,  Melkart  of  Tyre 
and  Heracles  Sandan  of  Tarsus.  ^ 

I  cannot  undertake  to  tell  you  in  detail  what  we 
know  of  their  adventures  and  of  their  worship. 
Bousset  would  readily  dispense  me  from  the  task  of 
making  any  comparison  at  all;  for  he  doubtless  has 
understood  how  unfitting  it  must  he  to  bring  the 
Savior  into  the  presence  of  an  Adonis  or  an  Attis. 
He  has  likewise  understood  that  such  a  collocation 
would  have  been  no  less  shocking  to  the  conscience 
and  good  sense  of  the  first  faithful.  But  we  would 
be  wrong  to  avail  ourselves  of  this  dispensation, 
dictated  by  tactical  reasons,  and  so  deprive  our- 
selves of  a  good  argument. 

Bousset  sets  aside  particular  comparisons,  but  he 
imagines  (the  word  is  not  too  strong)  an  abstract 
idea  of  a  god  suffering,  dying  and  rising,  disengaged 
from  myths  and  forms  of  worship,  become  almost  a 
theorem,  without  ceasing  to  be  an  object  of  faith. 
Here  is  his  text  :  "  The  concrete  figure  of  the  god 
with  his  definite  myth  is  no  longer  in  relief;  in  all 
there  is  manifested  an  idea  which  puts  Hellenic 
mystery-piety  in  possession  of  a,  mystical  power, 
the  idea  of  the  Divinity  dying  and  risen  who  brings 
salvation.  And  this  idea  takes  on  little  by  little  a 
philosophical  garment,  the  myth  becomes  religious 
speculation.  "  ^  Here  we  have  the  traits  of  Christ; 
here  we  have  an  attempt  to  create  a  spiritual 
atmosphere  in  which  the  first  Christians  will  not 

1.  Cf.  Les  religions  orientates  et  les  origines  du  christia- 
nisme,  in  Melanges  d'histoire  religieuse,  and  Etudes  sur  les 
religions  semitiques ,  2^  ed. 

2.  Kyrios  Christos,  p.  166. 


328  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

inhale  too  much  asphyxiating  gas.  The  proof 
Bousset  gives  that  this  fusion  was  reahzed  is  that 
the  Greeks  gave  it  the  name  theocrasy.  —  Yes,  but 
when  and  how?  We  are  again  obUged  to  distin- 
guish. There  was  a  first  theocrasy  which  was  an 
identification  rather  than  a  fusion  of  gods.  Bousset 
goes  back  to  the  time  of  the  successors  of  Alexander 
for  the  identity  of  Dionysos  and  of  Osiris.  We 
might  even  go  as  far  back  as  Herodotus.  When  the 
Greeks  began  to  study  the  Orient  and  Egypt,  they 
perceived  that  some  of  their  gods  had  certain  com- 
mon attributes  with  those  of  this  new  world.  They 
thought  that  they  were  the  same.  But  the  relig- 
ions remained  different,  and  so  did  the  worships. 
Afterwards  the  idea  arose  of  one  divinity  of  which 
the  different  gods  were  but  the  manifestation.  It 
is  expressed  at  length  by  Apuleius  in  the  middle  of 
the  II  century  after  Christ  in  favor  of  I  sis,  divinity 
one  and  multiple.  The  two  ways  of  combining 
the  gods  among  themselves  were  followed  separa- 
tely and  then  they  fused;  Adonis,  Attis  and  Osiris 
were  assimilated  on  account  of  their  incontestable 
resemblances  in  myth  and  worship.  But  these 
speculations  in  which  the  effect  of  rhetoric  gave 
relief  to  the  thought,  which  remained  naturalistic 
and  pantheistic,  had  little  influence  on  the 
worships.  Never  was  there  any  piety,  Greek  or 
Oriental,  aroused  by  the  concept  of  a  god  suffering-, 
dying  and  rising.  Attis  or  Adonis  or  Osiris  was 
honored  by  appropriate  worship  or  mysteries; 
Attis  came  to  be  regarded,  in  his  circle,  as  the 
supreme  god;  people  were  conscious  of  a  particular 
resemblance   between   certain  worships,    and   the 


JUDEO-PAGAN    SYNCRETISM  329 

priests  of  Attis  flattered  themselves  that  they 
possessed  a  religion  which  had  analogies  with  that 
of  the  Christians.  ^  But,  once  more,  this  would 
not  have  resulted  in  the  disengaging  of  the  idea  of  a 
»divinity  dying  and  rising  for  the  salvation  of  men, 
except  possibly  in  the  brain  of  a  philosopher.  And 
even  this  exceptional  case  did  not  occur. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  none  of  these  more  or  less 
divine  personages  was  properly,  at  least  in  the  time 
of  Christ,  a  dead  and  risen  god.  It  is  known  from 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  ^  how  repugnant  to  the 
Greeks  was  the  idea  of  the  resurrection.  We  must 
here  deplore  a  lack  of  precision  which  would  not  be 
tolerated  in  any  other  order  of  researches.  The 
same  scholar  who  speaks  of  the  resurrection  of 
Dionysos  Zagreus  began  with  a  correct  exposition 
of  his  myth.  ^  Zagreus  was  killed  by  the  Titans 
who  cut  him  into  pieces  and  devoured  him,  with 
the  exception  of  his  heart.  This  heart  was  swal- 
lowed by  Zeus  or  by  Semele,  as  a  consequence  of 
which  a  second  Zagreus  was  born,  who  shared  the 


1.  St.  Augustine  has  transmitted  to  us  the  exclamation  of  a 
priest  of  Cybele  speaking  of  Attis  :  "  Our  turbaned  god,  he 
too,  is  Christian  et  ipse  pileatus  christianus  est  {Tract,  iru 
Joann.  vii,  1,  6).  "  M.  Graillot  [Le  culte  de  Cybele,  p.  514) 
takes  this  as  a  reference  to  the  use  of  ointments  :  "  Attis, 
like  the  Christ,  brought  to  his  faithful  the  sacrament  of  holy 
chrism,  which  had  become  the  symbol  of  the  athlete  who  is 
preparing  for  battle  :  hahet  ergo  diaholus  christos  suos  (Firm. 
Matern.,  De  err.  prof,  rel.,  xxii,  3).  "  I  should  rather  think, 
from  the  context  of  St.  Augustine,  that  it  was  an  allusion  to 
the  bloody  expiation. 

2.  Acts  XVII,  32. 

3.  Gh.  Dubois,  art,  Zagreus  in  the  Dictionnaire  des  Anti- 
quites. 


330  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

throne  of  Zeus.  Is  this  a  resurrection?  Adonis 
was  a  handsome  young  man,  beloved' of  Aphrodite, 
killed  by  a  boar ;  all  Greece  and  the  Orient  lamented 
his  death.  Of  resurrection  there  is  no  question 
until  the  second  century  of  our  era,  and  then  only 
in  an  interpolated  text.  ^  Adonis  was,  moreover, 
never  a  god  properly  so-called. 

The  myth  of  Attis  is  extremely  complicated  and 
I  could  not  here  explain  it  to  you  with  propriety. 
Of  resurrection  there  is  no  question  until  th& 
IV  century,  and  then  in  a  Christian  author. 

Heracles  is,  indeed,  a  risen  hero;  lolaos  raised  him 
by  making  him  inhale  the  odor  of  quails.  Heracles 
was.  a  glutton.  It  is  a  mere  episode  in  a  fairy 
story.  But  Heracles  died  upon  a  pyre,  and  was 
received  among  the  gods.  ^  This  is  an  apotheosis, 
a  change  of  nature,  not  the  resurrection  of  a  man- 
god.  The  theme  of  a  man  who  becomes  a  god  is- 
classical  in  paganism  from  the  earliest  times,  in 
Mesopotamia  and  in  Egypt.  There  is  no  need  of 
much  research  to  discover  such  cases.  But  what 
is  new  in  Christianity,  is  the  incarnation  of  the 
Son  of  God,  raised  after  His  mortal  life.  Besides, 
among  the  gods  which  are  cited,  Attis  became  a  god 
only  very  late,  Heracles  and  Adonis  never  became 
altogether  divine. 

Alone  among  those  referred  to  as  suffering, 
dying  and  rising  gods,  Osiris  is  really  a  type  of  a 
risen   god.     But   his  worship   was  very   specially 


1.  Cf.  £tudes  sur  les  religions  semitiques^  by  the  present 
writer,  2nd:  ed.  p.  303. 

2.  Etudes  sur  les  religions  semitiques ,  pp.  308-311. 


JUDEO-PAGAN    SYNCRETISM  331 

Egyptian.  It  was  not  precisely  his  resurrection 
that  was  celebrated.  Resurrection  was,  according 
to  the  Egyptian  religion,  dependent  on  the  pre- 
servation of  the  body.  Now  Osiris,  killed  by  his 
brother  Typhon,  had  been  cut  to  pieces.  His  wife 
I  sis  had  gathered  the  pieces,  except  one,  which  was 
indispensable,  the  emblem  of  life  and  resurrection. 
Finally  she  discovered  it.  Therefore,  after  the 
rite  of  mourning  which  lasted  four  days,  the 
Invention  was  celebrated.  You  see  to  what  this 
so-called  feast  of  Easter  is  reduced.  The  resur- 
rection of  Osiris  was  thereby  rendered  possible  and 
took  place  in  the  other  world.  What  was  commem- 
orated was  a  loss  and  a  recovery.  Osiris  has  al- 
ways been  a  god  of  the  other  world,  dead,  and  a 
god  of  the  dead,  a  sad,  mummy-like  figure.  He 
survives  as  god  of  the  living  in  the  person  of  his  son 
Horus,  god  of  light  and  vanquisher  of  Typhon. 

It  is  true  that  Osiris  is  the  type  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  and  it  is,  I  believe,  from  Egypt  that 
this  idea  spread  in  heathendom.  But  the  Jews  of 
the  time  of  Jesus  believed  in  the  resurrection;  the 
Apostles  believed  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus; 
what  could  the  Osiris-myth  add  to  their  belief? 

The  only  trait  that  is  truly  common  to  all  these 
gods  or  heroes,  is  that  their  so-called  passion  w^as  a 
wholly  personal  affair.  Never  were  the  sufferings 
or  the  death  of  a  god  accepted  in  view  of  the 
salvation  of  men,  nor  even  regarded  as  useful  for 
this  salvation.  All  that  is  found  of  the  kind,  and 
this  is  found  only  in  the  IV  century  after  Christ, 
is  a  text  of  the  Christian  Firmicus  Maternus, 
.according  to  whom  the  initiate  hope  for  salvation 


332  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

like  the  god  :  "  Courage,  initiate,  since  the  god  is 
saved;  you  shall  be  delivered  from  your  sorrows.  "  ^ 

While  pagan  piety  was  finding  expression  in 
rites  which  were  supposed  to  recall  the  adventures 
of  the  gods,  the  mythologists  of  the  day  endeavored 
to  discover  the  meaning  of  these  myths.  For 
philosophers,  since  Socrates,  regarded  them  as 
absurd  and  obscene,  and  sought  to  interpret  them. 
An  instance  is  given  by  Bousset,  the  one  which 
he  regards  as  most  suggestive  :  "  The  suffering 
and  dying  god  (Osiris)  is  the  divinity  which  has 
its  proper  home  in  the  world  of  ideas,  K6a[j.o; 
voTjToc.  With  a  view  of  creating,  of  setting  in 
motion  the  inert  masses  of  matter,  it  came  down 
into  the  inferior  and  sordid  world  of  matter,  lost 
itself  in  the  lower  world  of  sensibility,  was  torn  to 
pieces,  held  captive  in  powerlessness;  it  did  not, 
nevertheless,  lose  the  capacity  to  rise  anew  to  the 
divine  world  by  coming  forth  from  the  abasement 
of  death.  "  ^  This  is  found  in  Plutarch,  in  the 
second  century  after  Christ,  among  many  other 
explanations. 

Such  explanations  are  the  work  of  mythologists... 
and  of  critics.  We  have  a  right  to  ask  them  to  be 
more  definite,  to  leave  the  world  of  abstractions  and 
the  comparisons  of  libraries  in  order  to  look)  upon 
the  facts  such  as  they  must  really  have  been.  Let 
us  suppose,  if  any  one  insists,  —  for  it  has  never 


1.  FiRMicus  Maternus,  De  errore  prof,  relig.  (ed.  Ziegler), 
pp.  57,  14  s.  :  0appe"iT£   [j-'jaxat  to'j  Oso-j    aeatojijisvoy,    scrcat 

2.  Kyrios  Christos,  p.  166. 


JUDEO-PAGAN    SYNCRETISM  333 

been  proved,  —  that  the  Oriental  mysteries  which 
took  on  great  developments  in  the  Empire  in  the 
second  century,  that  the  philosophical  systems  of 
which  there  are  traces  only  at  the  same  period, 
were  known  in  the  year  40  at  Jerusalem,  at  Corinth, 
and  at  Rome. 

Was  Paul  the  first  to  reflect  on  the  union  of  the 
Christian  with  the  death  of  Christ  in  baptism?  No, 
for  he  says  to  the  Romans  :  "  Know  ye  not  that  all 
we  who  have  been  baptized  in  Christ  Jesus,  are 
baptized  in  his  death?  "  ^  Mystical  union  with 
Christ  dead  for  them  was,  then,  known  to  them, 
simply  because  they  were  Christians.  But  whence 
did  this  deep  conception,  not  easily  suggested  by 
the  symbolism  of  baptism,  come  to  the  Christians, 
to  Judeo-Christians  as  well  as  to  the  others  (for 
Paul  makes  no  distinction  between  them  in  this 
respect)  unless  it  be  from  the  Apostles,  or  the 
columns,  ^  as  St.  Paul  calls  them. 

Then  what  is  meant?  The  Apostles  beheved 
Jesus  was  Messias  because  they  saw  Him,  —  the 
scholars  with  whom  we  are  discussing  would  say 
because  they  thought  they  saw  Him,  —  risen.  It 
is  not  pagan  worship  which  taught  them  the 
character  of  the  death  of  Christ,  a  death  accepted 
to  assure  their  salvation,  since  this  idea  is  nowhere 
found  in  the  mysteries.  On  the  other  hand,  this 
idea  of  an  atoning  death  was  in  Isaias  ^  and  familiar 
enough  to  the  Jews. 


1.  Rom.  V,  2. 

2.  Gal.  II,  9. 

3.  Is.  LIII. 


334  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

Is  it  contended  that  the  Apostles  or  the  first 
Christians  beUeved  more  easily  in  the  divinity  of 
Jesus  on  account  of  the  legends  of  gods  dying  and 
rising?  Since  a  god  may  die,  the  Christ  may  well 
have  been  God,  notwithstanding  His  death.  More 
than  one  pagan  may  have  so  reasoned  and  have 
preferred  Christ  to  Attis.  But  this  supposes  an 
alr'^ady  existing  rivalry  between  the  two  worships. 
Could  a  Jew  reason  in  this  way,  or  even  a  Gentile 
converted  beforehand  to  the  behef  in  one  true  God? 
From  the  fact  that  Osiris  had  been  cut  to  pieces, 
that  these  pieces  were  found  by  Isis,  that  afterwards 
Osiris  regained  his  rank  among  the  gods ;  from  the 
fact  that  Adonis,  killed  by  a  boar,  was  again 
admitted  to  the  intimacy  of  Aphrodite;  from  the 
fact  that  Attis,  mutilated  by  his  own  will,  was 
changed  into  bread  and  then  recognized  as  a  god, 
could  one  conclude  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  should 
receive  the  worship  which  belongs  only  to  the  one 
true  God?  As  well  suppose  that  the  apotheosis 
of  Claudius  suggested  the  conferring  of  Divine 
honors  upon  Jesus.  For  any  Jew  this  apotheosis 
was  the  abomination  of  desolation;  for  any  sane 
mind,  it  was  a  comedy.  As  for  the  Platonic 
explanation  of  a  god  come  down  from  the  sphere  of 
ideas,  and  imprisoned  in  the  matter  which  he  came 
to  organize,  an  outrageously  false  explanation  and 
one  that  is  isolated,  what  impression  could  it 
make  upon  those  simple  souls  who  composed  the 
first  communities  ? 

When  a  Christian,  or  even  a  simple  tourist,  assist- 
ing at  the  exercises  of  turning  dervishes,  sees  the 
over-excitement   of  the   dancers,  who  are  beside 


JUDEO-PAGAN    SYNCRETISM  335 

themselves  and  fall  from  exhaustion,  he  experiences 
a  feeling  of  repulsion.  If  it  be  explained  to  him 
that  these  dances  represent  the  movement  of  the 
heavenly  spheres,  will  his  painful  impression  be 
changed  into  admiration?  I  might  have  chosen 
an  example  which  would  be  more  expressive.  An 
Itahan  poet  who  has  recently  died  while  still  young, 
saw  in  India  the  devadasi,  priestess  of  Ramba  Devi, 
dancing  : 

"  She  was  certainly  the  (sister  of  the  Greek  Venus, 
surviving  in  the  land  of  Brahma,  while  the  other 
has  disappeared  forever  at  the  coming  of  her  enemy, 
the  Virgin  Mother. 

"  We,  who  are  devoted  to  the  Virgin  Mother,  who 
is  an  affirmation  of  the  spirit,  a  negation  of  the 
flesh,  cannot  understand  an  erotic  worship ;  all  our 
inmost  essence,  moulded  by  morals  which  have 
governed  us  for  two  thousand  years,  shudders  and 
revolts  on  seeing  the  sister  of  the  old  adversary 
arise  from  the  night  of  ages.  "  ^ 

Guido  Gozzano  had  not  yet  returned  to  his 
Christian  faith  when  he  felt  this  disgust;  the  two- 
thousand  year  old  morals  shuddered  within  him. 
Are  we  to  esteem  less  the  first  enthusiasm  of  the 
Christian  communities,  that  intense  desire  for 
remission  of  sins  which  was,  it  is  recognized,  what 
gave  power  to  the  Gospel?  Did  those  who  sought 
in  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ  pardon,  reconciliation 
with  God,  breathe  the  same  spiritual  atmosphere  as 
the  devotees  of  forms  of  worship  which  are  almost 
unmentionable?     The  Apostles  gave  baptism  in  the 


1.  Le  Correspondant,  Feb.    10,   1918,  p.   557. 

22 


336  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

name  of  Jesus;  Christians,  in  baptism,  united 
themselves  to  His  death  and  resurrection  to  live  in 
God,  because  they  sought  God  in  Him,  and  that 
from  the  very  first  day ;  for  mystical  union  cannot 
take  place  betv^een  human  beings,  and  the  Chris- 
tians really  united  themselves  to  Christ.  H  we 
might  distinguish  with  some  German  scholars, 
Schweitzer,  Bousset  and  others,  a  mysticism  of 
God  and  a  mysticism  of  Christ,  that  is  to  say,  the 
secret  of  uniting  oneself  to  God  or  of  uniting  orieself 
to  Christ,  one  should  have  to  grant  unhesitatingly 
that  the  mysticism  of  St.  Paul  and  that  of  baptism 
is  mysticism  of  union  with  Christ.  But  can  we  for  a 
moment  suppose  that  the  desire  of  union  ended  in 
Christ  as  in  an  intermediary  distinct  from  God? 
Would  this  not  have  been  to  rob  God  of  His  glory? 
Does  not  Paul  speak  of  living  "  unto  God  in  Christ 
Jesus?  "  ^  "  You  are  dead,  he  writes  to  the  Colos- 
sians,  and  your  life  is  hidden  with  Christ  in  God.  "  ^ 
To  live  in  Christ  or  in  God  is  the  same  Divine  Hfe. 
There  is  only  one  mysticism  in  St.  Paul ;  it  brings  us. 
to  God  through  Christ  dead  and  risen.  It  has 
nothing  in  common  with  myths,  which  never  have- 
given  rise  to  true  mysticism. 

IV 

The  Eucharist. 

The  mysticism  of  baptism,  however  realistic  it  is, 
astonishes  the  modern  world  less  than  that  of  the 

1.  Rom.  VI,  11. 

2.  Col.  Ill,  3. 


JUDEO-PAGAN    SYNCRETISM  337 

Eucharist.  It  is  again  Luther  who  opened  the 
way  to  complete  negation  by  rejecting  trans- 
substantiation.  His  followers  w^ent  farther;  but 
they  thought  they  could  safeguard  the  rite  and  the 
authority  of  St.  Paul  whilst  reducing  the  sacrament 
to  the  status  of  a  mere  symbol.  Now  William 
Robertson  Smith,  a  very  distinguished  orientalist, 
described  the  primitive  sacrifice  of  the  Semites  as 
the  immolation  and  the  eating  of  the  god,  who  thus 
communicated  to  the  members  of  his  clan  a  renewal 
of  the  divine  life  which  this  clan  had  from  him. 
People  smiled  at  first,  and  it  was  remarked  that 
this  was  already  the  Catholic  Eucharist  I  Then 
they  reread  St.  Paul,  in  the  light  of  the  history  of 
religions,  and  they  found  in  him  the  traditional 
teaching  about  the  faithful  feeding  upon  the  flesh 
of  Christ  and  drinking  His  blood.  Dieterich,  in 
his  "  Liturgy  of  Mithra  "  ^  has  no  doubt  about  it,  nor 
has  Heitmiiller,  ^  nor  Weinel,  ^  nor  Reitzenstein,  ^ 
nor  in  England,  Lake.  ^ 

This  would  be  all  well  enough,  if  our  new  exegetes 
did  not  affect  to  understand  this  eating  of  a  God  in 
the  grossest  manner.  And  the  conclusion  is  at 
once  drawn  that  an  idea  so  foreign  to  Jewish  faith 
can  have  penetrated  into  Christianity  only  through 
the  pagan  mysteries.  And,  in  fact,  in  the  mysteries 
of  Dionysos  Zagreus,  the  faithful  cut  up  and  ate  the 
raw  flesh  of  a  bull,  which,  deified  by  the  prepara- 

1.  Eine  Mithrasliturgie,  p.  105. 

2.  Taufe  und  Abendmahl  hei  Poulus,  p.  84. 

3.  Biblische  Theologie  des  N.  B.,  p.  327. 

4.  Die  hellenistischen  Mysterienreligionen,  p.  57. 

5.  Earlier  Epistles  of  saint  Paul,  p.  213. 


tions  of  the  sacrifice,  represented  the  god  himself. 
This  worship  was  known  in  the  V  century  B.  C,  as 
is  estabhshed  by  texts  of  Euripides  ^  and  Aristo- 
phanes. ^  Plutarch  speaks  of  it  with  disgust.  ^  To 
strengthen  the  argument  drawn  from  the  eating  of 
raw  flesh,  Egyptian  texts  have  been  recalled  in 
which  Pharao,  when  he  enters  heaven,  devours 
the  gods  in  order  to  absorb  their  strength  and  their 
wisdom.  The  human  sacrifices  of  the  Aztecs,  in 
which  a  divine  name  was  given  to  the  victims  before 
they  were  devoured,  furnish  another  analogy.  The 
sacrifice  and  the  bloody  repast  of  the  Sinai  Be- 
douins related  by  St.  Nil,  and  so  fully  exploited 
for  the  benefit  of  his  theory  by  Robertson  Smith, 
are  insisted  on.  *  This  case  at  least  occurred  not 
very  far  from  Palestine,  and  the  custom  must  have 
been  ancient.  But  the  victim  of  the  nomads, 
whether  a  youth  or  a  camel,  did  not  represent  the 
deity;  it  was  immolated  to  the  morning  star,  the 
presence  of  which  in  the  sky  was  required  for  the 
sacrifice.  How  the  most  brutal  practices  of  the 
most  rudimentary  religions  can  have  thus  amal- 
gamated with  the  worship  of  the  spirit  borrowed 
from  Hermetic  philosophy,  we  are  not  told. 


1.  Fragm.  476. 

2.  Ran.,   355. 

3.  In  his  treatise  on  the  cessation  of  oracles  (ch.  xiv),  in 
the  same  category  of  rites  more  demoniacal  than  divine,  he 
places  Homophagia  and  cutting  in  pieces,  fasts  and  lamen- 
tations, with  obscene  words.  These  are  precisely  the  rites, 
judged  ignoble  by  enlightened  paganism,  that  would  have 
formed  the  spiritual  atmosphere  in  which  Christianity  grew 
up  ! 

4.  Etudes  sur  les  religions  semitiques,  2nd.  ed  p.  257  f. 


JUDEO-PAGAN    SYNCRETISM  339 

All  these  rites  understand  communion  in  the  way 
in  which  it  was  understood  by  the  Capharnaites, 
who  were  horrified  at  the  thought;  the  spiritual 
element  is  lacking  in  them.  The  desire  to  absorb 
divine  powers  by  eating  is  assuredly  very  wide- 
spread among  savages.  To  the  people  of  Caphar- 
naum,  Jesus  answered  that  the  flesh  had  never 
profited.  What  profited,  was  to  nourish  them- 
selves with  His  body  very  really  indeed,  but  by 
the  way  of  the  Spirit.  Did  the  Apostles,  when 
they  heard  the  words,  "  This  is  my  body,  "  "  This 
is  my  blood,  "  believe  in  their  efficacy  because  of 
the  ancient  usage,  abandoned  as  barbarous,  of 
eating  the  raw  flesh  of  victims,  for  the  sake  of 
finding  the  living  god  in  the  still  running  blood? 
Let  us  answer,  since  we  must,  that  the  Eucharist 
was  destined  to  commemorate  the  death  of  Christ, 
His  blood  shed  in  order  to  form  a  new  covenant;  it 
was  renewed  in  memory  of  that  death.  The  words 
of  Christ  which  we  have  recalled  and  the  deter- 
mination of  the  meaning  of  the  Eucharistr  must 
have  preceded  the  rite.  The  transformation  which 
some  have  conjectured,  —  representing  the  disciples 
as  imagining  that  they  were  feeding  upon  Christ 
at  the  traditional  banquet  and  then  inventing  the 
sayings  attributed  to  Christ,  —  such  a  transfor- 
mation, carried  out  in  all  the  churches,  without 
any  protest  being  raised,  is  a  thousand  times  more 
inexplicable  than  the  act  of  the  Master,  such  as 
tradition  related  it.  Alone  could  His  authority 
have  imposed  the  rite  and  fixed  its  meaning. 

It  is  embarrassing  to  discuss  these  matters,  and 
this  embarrassment  is  not  less  when  we  hear  people 


340  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

compare  to  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  the  elemen- 
tary usages  of  the  mystery- rehgions,  usages  which 
really  existed  in  the  first  century,  though  under  a 
less  repulsive  form  than  in  the  rite  of  eating  raw 
meats.  Sacred  meals  were  known  to  the  Jews  as 
well  as  to  the  pagans;  they  ate  the  flesh  of  the  vic- 
tims; but  it  would  be  going  too  far  to  attribute  to 
these  banquets  a  divine  effect  produced  in  the  soul. 
At  most,  in  these  repasts  God  or  the  god  was 
considered  as  invited  to  share  them;  the  worship- 
pers rejoiced  in  his  presence;  the  sacred  meal  was 
a  manifestation  of  devotion  which  drew  down  the 
divine  favor,  not  a  sacrament.  This  being  clearly 
the  case,  insistence  is  placed  by  critics  less  on  the 
banquet  itself  than  on  certain  foods  of  which  the 
initiate  partook. 

According  to  Clement  of  Alexandria,  a  person 
who  had  been  admitted  to  the  mysteries  of  Demeter 
at  Eleusis  declares  :  "  I  have  fasted,  I  have  drunk 
the  cup;  I  have  received  from  the  box;  having 
done,  I  put  it  into  the  basket,  and  out  of  the  basket 
into  the  chest.  "  ^  A  very  considerable  German 
scholar,  Lobeck,  has  changed  "  done  "  into  "  tas- 
ted. "  This  would  give  a  solid  substance  and  a 
liquid  substance.  This  correction  appears  very 
suspicious  to  me,  but  let  us  pass  on. 

In  the  worship  of  Gybele  and  of  Attis,  the  elect 
said :  "  I  have  eaten  out  of  the  drum,  I  have  drunk 
out  of  the  cymbal.  "  This  food  and  this  drink  are 
said  to  resemble  the  Eucharist.  Yes,  because  you 
look  upon  these  aliments  as  a  divine  substance. 

1.  Protrepl,  18. 


JUDEO-PAGAN    SYNCRETISM  341 

But  this  is  something  no  one  has  a  right  to  say. 
The  texts  do  not  permit  the  inference,  and  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  mysteries  exclude  it.  Resemblances 
may  be  catalogued;  they  are  undoubtedly  nume- 
rous, though  very  remote;  but  they  do  not  permit 
us  to  place  the  two  initiations  on  the  same  level. 
The  tv^o  communions  are  different. 

We  believe,  indeed,  that  Christianity  would  not 
have  won  souls  had  it  not  presented  itself  as  a 
mystery  of  salvation.  Alongside  of  the  ancient 
religions,  which  were  especially  the  worships  of 
cities  and  had  as  their  object  the  pubhc  weal  gua-  ^ 
ranteed  by  the  favor  of  the  gods,  there  had  been 
formed  societies,  tliiasi,  in  which  men  sought  in 
common  the  secret  of  escaping  the  peril  of  total 
perdition  at  the  moment  of  death.  Judaism,  too, 
proposed  to  itself  the  salvation  of  the  circumcised 
in  the  world  to  come.  A  pious  Jew  expected  it  of 
the  observation  of  the  Law.  In  the  pagan  world, 
men  sought  to  estabhsh  a  particular  relationship 
with  helpful  divinities  by  means  of  the  mysteries. 
But  this  was  not  exclusively  reserved  to  the 
mysteries.  It  was  ever  the  predominant  preoccu- 
pation of  Egyptian  religion  to  assure  by  its  cere- 
monies the  salvation  of  its  faithful  in  the  midst  of 
the  dangers  of  the  world.  And  all  religions  had 
little  by  little  come  to  make  of  individual  salvation 
beyond  the  grave  their  principal  object. 

It  goes,  then,  without  saying,  that  Christianity 
must  present  itself  with  promises  of  salvation,  and 
these  promises  must  naturally  be  connected  with 
a  divine  personage,  with  a  God.  By  uniting  him- 
self to  his  god,  the  Greek  initiate  might  escape 


342  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

perdition.     But  what  could  this  union  be  in  the 
mysteries? 

Strange  as  it  may  appear  to  us,  union  with  the 
god  in  the  Greek  mysteries  was  brought  about  by 
a  spectacle.  And  perhaps  a  human  eye  never 
contemplated  better  ordered  processions  than  those 
which  went  from  Athens  to  Eleusis,  nor  dances  more 
graceful  than  those  which  took  place  in  the  mea- 
dows near  the  sanctuary  of  Demeter,  nor  sights 
comparable  to  the  performances  of  the  great  myste- 
ries, in  which  a  beauty-loving  people,  which  had 
created  the  tragedy,  surpassed  itself  in  its  effort 
to  produce  in  souls  the  deepest  impressions  of  sor- 
row or  of  serenity.  These  sacred  dramas  must 
have  aroused  confidence  in  regard  to  salvation. 
Admitted  to  the  knowledge  of  the  destiny  of  the 
two  goddesses,  Demeter  and  Core,  the  initiate  based 
upon  this  knowledge  the  hope  of  living  in  their 
company  in  the  Elysian  fields.  All  the  other  rites, 
baths,  sacrifices,  reception  of  sacred  aliments,  were 
only  preliminary.  Again,  this  is  astonishing. 
M.  Foucart,  ^  who  knows  the  Eleusian  mysteries 
better  than  anybody  else,  has  judged  that  this  is 
not  enough.  He  has  supposed  that  certain  pass- 
words were  confided  to  the  initiate  to  permit  them 
to  triumph  over  the  snares  set  for  souls  on  the  way 
to  the  Elysian  fields.  Old  Egyptian  texts,  Orphic 
inscriptions  of  the  V  century  B.  C,  may  be  alleged 
in  this  sense.     It  is  still  a  conjecture.     Others  have 


1.  The  persevering  studies  of  M.  Paul  Foucart  have  been 
summed  up  in  Les  mysteres  d'Eleusis,  an  S"  vol.  comprising 
508  pages,  Paris,  1914,  cf.  Bevue  biblique,  1914,  pp.  619  fT. 


JUDEO-PAGAN    SYNCRETISM  343 

considered  that  the  mystic  union  was  effected  by 
the  sacred  marriage  of  the  god  and  the  goddess,  at 
which  the  initiate  would  be  represented  by  a  priest. 
But  a  sufficiently  formal  text  indicates  that  the 
culminating  point  of  the  mysteries  was  the  mani- 
festation and  the  contemplation  of  an  ear  of  wheat. 
I  more  willingly  cite  the  mysteries  of  Eleusis,  as  the 
noblest  of  all,  although,  according  to  the  Fathers 
and  also  according  to  what  we  learn  about  them 
from  archeological  discoveries,  they  were  indecent. 
But  let  us  leave  aside  this  aspect  of  the  question. 
The  decisive  point  is  that  these  spectacles,  whatever 
their  splendor  and  their  blemishes,  did  not  recall 
acts  profitable  unto  salvation.  The  divine  acts 
were  full  of  promise  because  the  initiate,  admitted 
into  the  confidence  of  the  god,  remained  his  friends 
forever;  but  none  of  these  acts  were  performed  by 
the  god  to  bring  himself  near  to  men  and  unite 
himself  with  them.  The  faithful,  then,  could  not 
receive  any  benefit  from  these  acts;  their  fruit  was 
not  a  real  union. 

The  concept  of  a  union  at  the  same  time  real 
and  spiritual  is  not  found  in  antiquity.  It  is  at  the 
center  of  Christianity.  Here  the  faithful  unite 
themselves  to  God  in  the  humanity  of  Jesus  Christ, 
in  the  human  way,  because  He  has  become  man. 

Communion  is  union  with  this  Divine  victim. 
The  mysticism  of  Paul  has  its  whole  meaning  only 
as  an  Incarnation  mysticism. 

The  acts  of  Jesus  are  salutary  because  they  are 
those  of  the  Son  of  God,  wto  came  to  give  to  Jews 
and  Gentiles  the  grace  of  pardon.  This  is  the 
m^ystery,  unknown  to  the  Jews,  which  won  the 


344  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

heart  of  the  Gentiles.  They  found  in  Christ  a 
God  who  was  come  to  seek  them,  whose  death  had 
been  efficacious  in  view  of  their  salvation  :  "  He 
loved  me,  and  delivered  Himself  for  me.  "  ^ 

It  was  a  mystery,  in  the  sense  that  it  was  a 
revealed  doctrine,  and  inaccessible  to  reason.  But 
Christianity  was  not  on  that  account  a  mystery- 
religion,  that  is  to  say,  a  religion  of  sacred  rites 
known  only  to  the  initiate.  This  is  another  dis- 
tinction which  may  dispell  many  ambiguities. 

It  is  said  that  Paul  knew  the  religions  of  his  age. 
And,  indeed,  he  was  not  ignorant  concerning  the 
superstitions  which  might  have  corrupted  the 
purity  of  his  Gospel.  His  Christians  at  Colossae 
had  just  emerged  from  paganism.  Certain  ele- 
ments of  asceticism,  the  worship  of  certain  heavenly 
spirits,  seemed  to  them  capable  of  assimilation 
with  their  new  faith.  The  Apostle  put  them  on 
their  guard.  ^ 

It  is  claimed  that  Paul  borrowed  something  of 
the  worship  of  the  dying  and  risen  god...  What 
would  he  have  done  with  it?  Imagination  had 
created,  in  the  best-known  cases,  those  of  Osiris, 
of  Attis  and  of  Adonis,  perhaps  through  the  inter- 
pretation of  a  ritual,  a  human  story  to  figure  the 
destiny  of  the  springtime  vegetation  or  of  the  grain 
of  wheat.  This  is  at  least  what  is  understood  by 
the  immense  majority  of  ancient  mythologists,  and 
what  is  thought  still  by  the  most  distinguished 
among  the  moderns.     Paul  did  not  disdain  to  use 


1.  Gal.  II,  20. 

2.  Col.  II,  16  f. 


JUDEO-PAGAN  SYNCRETISM         345 

the  comparison  of  the  grain  of  wheat  ^  for  the 
resurrection,  but  he  did  not  go  beyond  this. 

From  the  rites  and  myths  concerning  a  dying  and 
rising  god,  transcendant  philosophers  tried  to 
extract  a  purer  essence;  such,  among  many,  is  the 
mythologist  cited  by  Plutarch.  Is  it  this  extracted 
essence,  void  of  all  moral  teaching,  that  was  com- 
bined with  Christianity?  No,  no  more  than  was 
the  sensual  rite  which  horrified  the  converts. 

What  then  are  we  to  hold  in  the  matter?  Let 
modern  erudition  take  these  rehgions  which  tell  of 
gods  suffering  and  rising  such  as  they  are  in  the 
V  century,  after  having  become  perfected  in  contact 
with  Christianity  and  in  concurrence  with  it,  let  it 
choose  the  most  noble  traits  to  be  found  therein,  the 
purest  aspirations,  the  deepest  meanings.  Let  it 
succeed  (if  it  can)  in  uniting  all  that  is  best  in  them 
into  one  system ;  there  will  be  found  in  this  system 
no  serious  appeal  to  reform  of  morals.  What  would 
the  amalgamated  result  be  if  in  extracting  these 
erudite  references,  the  context  were  to  be  taken 
into  account !  The  Dionysos  of  Aristophanes  has 
spoken  of  the  pious  life  of  the  initiate.  ^  This  is, 
indeed,  a  text !  But  it  is  found  amid  the  lowest 
jestings  that  can  dishonor  a  divine  being,  the  object 
of  worship  in  certain  mysteries.  Apuleius  has 
expressed  with  the  suavest  compunction  the  love 
of  a  devotee  for  I  sis;  ^  this  expression  is  found  in  the 
story  of  the  metamorphoses  of  an  ass.     If  instead  of 


1.  Cor.  XV,  35. 

2.  Frogs,  456. 

3.  Metam.  XI,  24  and  25. 


346  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

comparing  texts  people  would  place  themselves  in 
thought  in  one  of  those  meetings  in  Jerusalem  in 
which  the  memory  of  Christ  still  lived,  and  then  in 
one  of  those  hideous  meetings  in  which  the  bloody 
fury  of  the  imitators  of  Attis  was  stirred  up,  they 
would  not  have  the  courage  to  say  that  the  doc- 
trine of  Paul,  in  its  splendid  unity,  was  gradually 
formed  in  the  course  of  twenty  years  by  an  amalga- 
mation between  Jewish  messianism  and  the  pagan 
mysteries.  The  history  of  the  two  religious  systems 
was  a  struggle  during  three  centuries.  The  pagan 
religions,  especialy  the  old  naturalistic  religions  of 
Osiris,  of  Adonis  and  of  Attis,  tried  in  vain  to  divest 
themselves  of  their  native  grossness  by  means  of  a 
transcendant  symbolism.  Christianity,  a  rehgion 
of  the  spirit,  would  more  than  once  have  been 
contaminated  by  them  had  not  ecclesiastical 
authority  preserved  the  faithful.  The  suffering 
god  who  fought  the  most  energetically  with  Christ, 
and  who  really  contended  with  Him  for  souls, 
was  Attis,  the  most  despised  of  all,  with  the  tauro- 
bolia,  or  baptisms  of  blood,  w^hich  it  was  claimed 
were  more  efficacious  than  the  baptism  of  water. 
But  what  philosophical  speculations  could  rehabih- 
tate  that  douche  of  blood,  which,  as  M.  Cumont 
remarks,  reminds  one  of  some  orgy  of  cannibals.  ^ 

1.  Religions  orientales  dans  le  paganisme  romain,  p.  88. 


TENTH  LECTURE 
CONCLUSIONS 


It  is  always  very  imprudent  to  say  that  we  are 
at  a  turning  point  of  history,  for  history  unfolds, 
its  events  without  revealing  the  secret  of  the  future. 
But  never  have  the  disasters  of  any  period  called' 
more  urgently  for  reconstruction  upon  firmer 
foundations.  Will  a  more  intense  spiritual  and 
religious  life  spring  from  the  present  chaos?  Yes, 
because  the  spirit  of  heroism  and  faith  has  hovered 
over  the  most  horrible  display  of  the  powers  of 
matter.  As  regards  the  studies  with  which  we 
have  been  dealing,  there  are  two  indications  that 
we  are  nearing  a  time  when  men  must  accept 
Christianity  in  the  Church,  such  as  she  understands 
it,  or  renounce  Christianity. 

The  first  of  these  indications  is  that  return  of 
many  independent  critics  to  the  ancient  exegesis  of 
the  Church,  of  which  we  spoke  in  our  last  confer- 
ence. The  second  is  the  attempt  of  an  uncom- 
promising radicalism  to  eliminate  Jesus  from 
history.  This  attempt,  though  assuredly  vain  and 
even  puerile,  has  revealed  the  weakness  of  Liberal 
exegesis,  already  undermined  by  the  assaults  of 
the  Eschatologists  and  of  the  historians  of  religion. 

At  first  sight,  this  last  freak  seems  to  justify 
those  who  regard  German  exegesis  as  a  manifesta- 
tion of  continuous  and  increasing  hostility  towards 


348  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

the  authority  of  the  sacred  books.  ^  But  in  reahty, 
instead  of  being  the  last  word  of  a  progressive 
onslaught,  it  is  a  reversion  to  the  style  of  attack 
in  vogue  a  century  and  a  quarter  ago.  Dupuis  ^ 
and  Volney  ^  maintained  that  Christianity  is  an 
astral  myth.  The  latest  and  most  daring  system 
is  inspired  by  the  same  principles  and  has  the  same 
aim  as  these  first  essays  of  an  integral  and  outspoken 
rationalism.  One  cannot  regard  most  German 
exegetes  as  responsible  for  such  excesses.  But  our 
treatment  of  German  exegesis  would  hardly  be 
complete  if  we  did  not  deal  with  the  struggle  pro- 
duced in  Germany  by  the  effort  to  establish  the 
thesis  that  the  man  Jesus  never  existed,  or  that 
his  earthly  existence  is  a  negligible  quantity  in  the 
history  of  Christianity.  We  shall,  then,  briefly 
indicate  the  principal  tenets  of  the  new  school  and 
the  general  attitude  assumed  towards  it,  before 
we  endeavor  to  set  forth  the  present  position  of 
German  exegetes,  and  to  state  the  characteristics 
of  German  exegesis  as  a  whole. 


The  Savior  God  and  Jesus  of   Nazareth. 

Strauss  had  not  gone  so' far  in  negation  as  our 
latest  mythicists,  since  he  wrote  a  Life  of  Jesus; 

1.  FiLLiON,  Les  Stapes  du  rationalismej  p.  2. 

2.  Origine  de  tous  les  cultes  ou  Religion  unicerselle. 

3.  Le?  Buines  ou  Meditations  sur  la  Revolution  des  Empires. 


CONCLUSIONS  349 

and  ever  since  the  days  of  Strauss,  the  great  majo- 
rity of  German  exegetes,  we  may  say  nearly  all,  had 
thought  that  they  were  consecrating  themselves 
to  a  work  of  historical  and  religious  restoration. 
It  would  be  an  error  to  regard  these  critics,  profes- 
sors of  theology  in  Protestant  faculties,  as  simple 
Voltairian  free-thinkers.     They  even  resented  being 
called  rationalists;   and   though,   as   a  matter   of 
fact,   they  did  not  recognize   any   authority  but 
reason,  they  affected  to  make  much  of  the  authority 
of   Jesus,    considered   as   one   endowed   with   the 
highest  religious  reason  that  ever  existed.     They 
undertook  to  found  a  new  Christianity  on  the  basis 
of  their  erudition,  which  they  hoped  to  impose 
upon  all  Protestantism,  —  while  awaiting  further 
conquests,  —  as  the  rehgion  of  the  future,  a  German 
religion,  issuing  from  the  Reformation  of  Luther. 
The  life  of  Jesus,  His  acts.  His  doctrine  were  to  be 
objectively  set  forth  under  the  sole  influence  of  the 
documents.     Much    clearing   away   of   traditional 
behef  was,  indeed,  called  for ;  but  this  was  carried 
out  with  the  view  of  reaching  the  solid  rock  of 
history.    Let  us  recall  their  system.  Jesus,  who  is  as 
well  known  to  us  as  can  be  Socrates  or  Epictetus, 
had  not  asked  worship  for  Himself;  this  was  due  only 
to  His  Father.     He  revealed  to  us  that  we  are  all 
children  of  God;  and  that  the  more  we  know  God 
as  Father,  the  more  we  deserve  to  be  called  His  sons. 
Jesus,  the  revealer  of  this  religion,  or  rather  of  relig- 
ion  itself,  was,  then,  preeminently  the   Son.     In 
St.  Paul  He  is  already  represented  as  existing  in 
heaven  before  becoming  son  of  David;  according 
to  the  Fourth  Gospel,  He  is  altogether  the  Son  of 


350  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

God.  Men  spontaneously  gave  Him  worship, 
which  He  would  have  repudiated,  after  having 
transformed  moral  sonship  into  natural  sonship. 

The  adoration  of  a  man  founded  upon  the  double 
sense  of  the  word  son,  was  a  rather  venturesome 
conjecture.  A  new  school,  seeking  to  strengthen 
the  theory,  proposes  to  leave  out  of  consideration 
the  passionately  monotheistic  and  exclusive  Jews, 
and  to  consider  the  change  which  transformed  the 
historical  Jesus  into  a  God  as  taking  place  among 
pagans,  familiar  with  the  idea  of  gods  appearing  in 
human  form  and  of  men  becoming  gods.  In  the 
time  of  Jesus,  this  school  assert,  people  were,  in 
the  mystery-religions,  imploring  salvation  from  a 
god  who  had  died  and  risen. 

We  have  seen  t|ie  fragile  nature  of  this  system. 
No  one  who  really  understands  the  beliefs  of 
paganism  and  the  faith  of  the  first  Christians  can 
hold  it.  Had  the  divinity  of  Jesus  not  been  taught 
at  the  starting-point  of  Christianity,  men  would 
never  have  believed  Him  God.  This  view  of  the 
matter  is  shared  with  Catholics  by  those  whom  we 
have  spoken  of  as  eliminating  Jesus  from  history. 
Fully  resolved  not  to  acknowledge  His  supernatural 
character  and  yield  to  His  claims,  they  have  solved 
the  problem  by  suppressing  His  humanity  !  Jesus, 
they  argue,  was  certainly  adored;  and  since  it  is 
impossible  that  a  man  should  be  so  seriously  taken 
as  a  God,  in  a  fully  historical  period,  Jesus  can 
never  have  existed  as  man;  His  divinity  was 
acknowledged  at  a  time  earlier  than  that  of  His 
so-called  human  existence. 

I   allow  that  this   statement  that   Jesus  never 


CONCLUSIONS  351 

existed  is  no  less  opposed  to  common  sense  than  to 
Christian  sentiment;  but  I  wish  to  point  out, 
even  in  the  worst  of  errors,  what  may  contribute 
to  the  defense  of  the  truth.  It  is  note- 
worthy, you  will  agree,  that  the  divinity  of 
Jesus  should  appear  to  certain  critics  so  well 
^established  at  the  beginning  of  Christianity  that  it 
would  be  easier  to  deny  His  human  personality 
than  the  Divine  character  which  He  has  in  history. 
When  an  effort  was  made  to  prove  that  William 
Tell  never  existed,  I  do  not  think  that  anyone 
inferred  that  there  had  been  a  worship  of  William 
Tell  among  the  ancient  dwellers  of  the  Four  Can- 
tons. And,  besides,  the  argumentation  of  Mr.  Wil- 
liam Benjamin  Smith  against  the  Liberals  is  not 
without  worth.  ^  They  draw  from  St.  Mark  a 
purely  human  picture  of  Jesus.  But  (leaving  aside 
the  fact  so  well  brought  out  by  Wrede  that  this  is  a 
misinterpretation  of  St.  Mark)  how  did  this  Jesus 
become  God  with  time?  He  is  already  God  in 
St.  Paul,  who,  according  to  critics,  is  earlier  than 
St.  Mark.  If  the  Liberals  were  logical  they  should 
place  St.  Mark  before  the  four  great  Epistles  of 
St.  Paul;  and  they  should  even  deny  the  authenti- 
city of  these  Epistles,  which  not  only  teach  Christ's 
divinity,  but  are  wholly  taken  up  with  this  Christ 
who  came  from  heaven  and  returned  thither,  rather 
than  with  a  Jesus  of  history.  The  apparition  of 
Christ  upon  earth  is  the  theme  of  the  Evangelists, 
Mr.  Smith  contends.  What  created  the  primitive 
community  according  to  him,  was  not  the  divinity  v 

1.  Cf.  Revue  hihlique,  1900,  p.  645.  » 

^  23 


352  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

of  Jesus,  but  the  appearance  in  Galilee  and  in 
Judaea  of  the  God  Jesus  under  the  form  of  a  simple 
mortal.  So  the  inconsistencies  of  Liberal  Protes- 
tantism prepared  the  way  for  the  paradoxical 
negation  of  the  existence  of  Jesus,  or  for  the  view 
that  if  (as  Mr.  Smith  holds)  a  personage  bore  that 
name  in  Galilee,  His  existence  amounted  to  so  lit- 
tle that  it  is  without  importance  for  the  religious 
history  of  mankind.  But  as  the  Christ-God  cannot 
be  eliminated  from  history,  an  origin  must  be  found 
for  Him;  it  Vv^ould  even  be  well  to  explain  by  an 
anterior  worship  the  historical  myth  of  the  Gospels. 
A  hard  task  1  Only  the  first  part  of  the  program 
has  been  rough-  drafted  —  and  poorly. 

We  may  distinguish  three  combinations.  Those 
who  are  most  heedless  of  texts,  veritable  dilettanti 
of  exegesis,  bring  the  myth  directly  from  the  stars. 
This  is  in  the  manner  of  Dupuis.  Mr,  Schweitzer 
cites  a  Pole,  Andrzej  Niemojewski,  ^  probably  a 
German  citizen,  and  a  German  officer,  who  has 
assumed  the  name  of  Fuhrmann  (driver).  ^ 

The  Driver  brings  us  to  heaven;  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  of  Jesus  is  the  starry  heaven,  etc.  I  spare 
you  this  astronomy,  which  is  unintelligible  to  me. 
There  is  a  great  distance  from  the  stars  to  Galilee 
and  the  Gospel;  there  should  be  an  intermediary 
stage ;  the  ancient  literatures  should  supply  it  with 
at  least  a  preliminary  sketch  of  the  Galilean  myth,. 


1.  Gott  Jesus  im  Lichte  fremder  und  eigener  Forschung  samt 
Darstellung  der  evangelischen  Astralstoffe,  Astralszenen  und 
Astralsysteme,  Munich,  1910,  2  vol.,  577  pp.  Polish  edition 
in  1909. 

2.  Der  Astralmythus  von  Christus,  1912,  284  pp. 


CONCLUSIONS  353 

Mr.  P.  Jensen  has  discovered  one,  all  traced  out  in 
the  Babylonian  Gilgamesh  Epic.  This  very 
distinguished  Assyriologist  has  astounded,  or 
rejoiced,  his  rivals  by  a  thoroughly  characterized 
divagation.  Gilgamesh  has  become  the  prototype 
of  the  heroes  of  antiquity;  Jesus,  after  Abraham 
and  Moses,  was  only  an  Israelite  Gilgamesh.  ^ 
Instead  of  administering  fraternal  correction  to  his 
colleague,  Heinrich  Zimmern,  a  no  less  competent 
specialist,  was  satisfied  with  formulating  some 
reservations;  he  inclines  personally  to  the  theory 
of  borrowings  from  Mithra,  from  Marduk  and 
Tammuz.  ^ 

I  have  not  named  the  initiator  of  this  whole 
movement,  because  he  wrote  only  in  English.  The 
Christianity  and  Mythology  of  Mr  John  Mackinnon 
Robertson  appeared  at  London,  in  1900;  the  third 
part,  The  Gospel  Myths,  was  translated  into  Ger- 
man in  1910.  But  an  American,  Mr.  William 
Benjamin  Smith  has  his  place  here  for  his  works 
appeared  at  Jena;  apparently  he  thought  that  such 
seed  could  take  root  only  in  Germany.  This  first 
book,  with  a  preface,  by  Schmiedel,  is  entitled, 
'■'  The  prehistoric  Jesus,  with  other  studies  preli- 

1.  The  titles,  being  translated,  are  :  "  The  Gilgamesh 
Epic  in  the  history  of  the  world  ",  1st.  vol.  "  The  origins 
of  the  Old  Testament  legend  of  the  patriarchs,  prophets, 
and  liberators,  and  the  New  Testament  legend  of  Jesus  ", 
Strasburg,  1906,  1030  pp.  —  "  Moses,  Jesus,  Paul.  Three 
variants  of  the  Babylonian  legend^of  the  man-god  Gilgamesh. 
An  accusation  against  some  theologians  and  sophists,  and  an 
appeal  to  laymen,  "  1909,  63  pp.  —  "  Did  the  Jesus  of  the 
Gospels  really  live?  An  answer  to  Professor  "J iilicher,  " 
1910,  32  pp. 

2.  Zum  Streit  urn  die  Christusmythe,  1910,  66  pp. 


354  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

minary  to  the  history  of  the  beginnings  of  Christian- 
ity. "  The  title  of  the  second  work,  Ecce  Deus,  is 
like  an  answer  to  the  Ecce  homo  of  Mr.  T.  Seeley.  ^ 
With  the  precision  of  a  mathematician,  Mr.  Smith 
has  resolutely  pursued  the  unknown,  the  religion 
of  the  savior  god  of  whom  was  made  the  Jesus  of  the 
Gospel.  In  the  course  of  his  researches,  he  has 
understood  that  the  myth  (an  elusive  myth)  could 
not  alone  explain  the  Gospel  story.  Reverting 
to  the  mistaken  ways  of  Bruno  Bauer,  he  has  seen 
in  the  actions  and  teachings  of  Jesus  the  reflection 
of  the  convictions  and  aspirations  of  His  followers. 
This  most  attenuated  form  of  the  new  mythical 
hypothesis  is  mitigated  by  the  method  of  Strauss. 
Here  is  what  Mr.  Smith  met  with  in  his  readings, 
and  what  serves  his  imagination  as  material  for 
the  religion  he  has  constructed.  Jesus  signifies 
Savior,  as  we  all  know  from  the  Gospel;  it  is  in 
Hebrew  the  name  of  that  Josue  who  led  the 
Hebrews  into  the  promised  land.  Mr.  Robertson 
had  already  made  a  God  of  Josue.  The  name 
suggested  worship,  as  did  that  other  name  given  to 
Jesus,  Nazarene;  this  means  Protector.  In  the 
first  century  B.  C.  a  Savior  God  was  adored  under 
many  forms.  Jesus  Nazarene  was  one  of  them. 
The  name  Christ,  king  or  judge,  was  scarcely  less 
suggestive  of  homage.  The  union  of  the  two 
names  in  one,  Jesus  Christ,  marks  the  beginning  of 
Christianity,    about   a   hundred  years   before   the 

2.  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus  nebst  weiteren  Vorstudien  zur 
Entstehungs geschichte  des  Urchristentums,  1906,  243  pp.  — 
Ecce  Deus,  Die  urchristliche  Lehre  des  reingottlichen  Jesu, 
1911,  315  pp. 


CONCLUSIONS  355 

Christian  era.  The  god  was  adored  by  a  Jewish 
sect,  of  hellenistic  tendencies,  rather  widely  spread 
in  the  Empire.  Proofs?  Mr.  Smith  gets  some  by 
antedating  a  hymn  of  the  Ophites,  Christian 
Gnostics  who  celebrated  Jesus  as  God,  and  a  Paris 
papyrus  of  the  IV  century,  in  which  we  find  the 
words  :  "  I  conjure  thee  by  Jesus,  the  god  of  the 
Hebrews.  "  The  other  proofs  are  equally  weighty. 
But  how  came  a  divine  myth  to  be  humanized  in 
the  Gospel?  The  Hghtning-like  reign  of  God  comes 
to  the  help  of  the  hypothesis,  with  its  chief,  who 
will  be  the  Messias,  or  Michael,  or  the  Son  of  Man, 
and  whose  anastasis,  an  enthronement  or  resur- 
rection, put  men  on  the  way  to  the  Risen  Christ. 

The  suggestions  of  Mr.  Smith  have  less  impor- 
tance in  themselves  than  in  their  influence  on 
Mr.  Drews.  ^  With  this  scholar,  the  negation  of 
the  history  of  Jesus  hitherto  not  taken  seriously, 
becomes  serious  and  agressive,  appeals  to  public 
opinion,  raises  considerable  agitation.  Noisy  meet- 
ings are  held;  pamphlets  are  launched;  brochures 
rain  upon  the  assaillants;  Father  Fillion  has  given 
a  long  account  of  this  exegetical  battle.  ^ 

I  cannot,  as  I  have  already  intimated,  regard  this 
system  as  a  legitimate  emanation  of  Germanism. 


1.  Arthur  Drews,  born  in  1865  at  Uetersen  (Holstein), 
professor  of  Philosophy  at  Karlsruhe,  has  written  on  Kant, 
Hegel,  Wagner,  Nietzsche  and  Ed.  von  Hartmann,  and  a 
work  called  Die  Religion  als  Selhst-Bewiistsein  Gottes  (Leip- 
zig, 1906),  before  writing  under  Mr.  Smith's  influence,  Die 
Christusmythe  1st  and  2nd  part,  1909  and  1911,  Die  Petrus- 
legende,  1910,  and  undertaking  the  campaign  described  in 
Fillion,  Les  etapes  du  rationalisme. 

2.  Les  etapes...,  pp.  320-346. 


356  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

Arthur  Drews  is  a  German  professor,  but  this  name 
is  Enghsh.  The  same  may  be  said  of  Robertson 
and  of  Smith.  Whittaker  ^  is  Enghsh,  Bolland  ^ 
is  Dutch.  Mr.  Lubinski  ^  is  doubtless  a  Pole,  as 
well  as  Mr.  Niemojewski.  Moreover  all  German 
exegetes,  Liberals,  Eschatologists,  historians  of 
religions,  save  rare  exceptions,  have  combined 
against  the  invaders.  For  invaders  they  are,  in  the 
fiejd  of  exegesis,  since  Robertson  is  a  mythologist, 
Smith  a  professor  of  mathematics,  Jensen  an  Assy- 
riologist,  Drews  a  philosopher  who  preaches  the 
holy  war  in  the  name  of  Pantheism.  One  cannot, 
then,  justly  say  :  "  See  what  German  criticism 
leads  to.  "  German  criticism  has  energetically 
protested,  and,  being  upon  its  own  ground  of  exe- 
gesis, has  sent  back  to  their  own  studies  incom- 
petent amateurs.  ^ 

Nevertheless  the  battle  has  been  fought  upon 
German  soil,  many  German  consciences  have  been 
troubled,  and  such  a  radical  destr,uction  of  Chris- 
tianity has  appeared  desirable  to  too  many  of  the 
adepts  of  pantheism.  We  congratulate,  indeed, 
German  exegesis  on  having  proved  the  existence 
of  Jesus.  But  is  this  enough  to  found  a  true 
Christianity?  Are  things  still  in  that  state  of 
stagnation  and  compromise  which  permitted  the 
Liberal  school  so  long  almost  to  dominate  in  the 
name  of  history  and  of  Scripture?  We  must  speak 
plainly,   and  ask  the  further  question  :  Are  the 

1.  The  origins  of  Christianity ,  Londres,  1904. 

2.  De  ecangelische  Jozua,  Leyde,  1907. 

3.  Die  Entstehung  des  Christentums  aus  der  antiken  Kultur, 
1910.  —  Das  (verdende  Dogma  vom  Lehen  Jesu,  1910. 


CONCLUSIONS  357 

professors  of  Protestant  theology  in  Germany  still 
Christians  ? 

II 

Present    Position    of    German    Exegetes. 

In    our    investigation    concerning    the    present 
status   of  German  exegesis,  we  might  leave  aside 
Mr.  Drews  and  the  partisans  of  the  ultra-mytholo- 
gical school;  since  they  are  not  exegetes.     They 
do  not  claim  the  title  and  seem  rather  proud  of  the 
fact  that  they  are  not  experts  in  this  particular  line; 
they  bid  defiance  to  speciaUsts,  and  ridicule  their 
delays.     Like  so  many  other  absolute  minds,  they 
think  that  they  alone  are  sincere,  because  they  see 
only  one  side  of  questions;  they  deem  themselves 
courageous    because    they    boldly    manifest    their 
intention  to  ruin   Christianity.     And   courage  is, 
indeed,  required  to  face,  not  the  Inquisition,  but 
ridicule.     Knowing  well  the  instincts  of  Germany, 
they  like  to  speak  of  the  rehgion  of , the  future,  with 
von  Hartmann,  rather  than  of  the  irrehgion  of  the 
future,  with  Guyau.     But  their  religion  is  based  on 
a  conception,  called  scientific,  of  a  world  from  which 
God  is  absent,  because  He  is  made  to  be  part  of  the 
world.     Their  ethics  is  deduced,  such  as  it  is,  from 
the  relationship  of  their  conscience  with  this  world; 
they  do  not  need  the  ethics  of  Jesus  Christ,  which 
they  have  agreed  to  look  upon  as  a  mere  adaptation 
of  ancient  symbols. 

In  France,  one  might  announce  their  near  disap- 


358  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

pearance;  though  reUgious  mysticism  is  still 
respected  here,  mysticism  without  rehgion  raises 
a  smile.  But  Germans,  since  the  days  of  Schelling, 
&re  able  to  get  along  with  pantheism  as  a  founda- 
tion for  religious  sentiment;  so  this  ueo-mythicism, 
beaten  upon  the  field  of  history,  may  live  on  as  a 
protest  of  the  pantheists  against  Protestant  exe- 
gesis. Already,  however,  Jensen  and  Steudel  have 
fallen  back  upon  supporting  trenches  in  the  school 
of  the  history  of  rehgions. 

The  leaders  of  this  historical  school  have  not 
deemed  it  compromising  to  uphold  the  existence  of 
Jesus.  Professor  Bousset  has  written  a  tract  on 
"  the  significance  of  the  person  of  Jesus  for  faith.  "  ^ 
Jesus  retains  His  value  as  a  symbol.  —  A  symbol 
of  the  faith  of  which  He  is  the  object?  —  The 
term  cannot  easily  be  defined;  apparently  it  was 
purposely  chosen  to  leave  the  Master  in  the  back- 
ground. The  representatives  of  the  comparative 
method  are,  however,  evidently  in  a  poor  position  to 
oppose  mythicism,  whether  pure  or  mingled  with 
symbolism.  They  will  not  concede  that  Jesus  was 
adored  before  JJis  Hfetime.  But  is  it  more  likely 
that  the  man  Jesus,  recognized  as  Messias  or  not, 
should  have  so  quickly  become  the  object  of  adora- 
tion as  Savior,  thanks  to  predispositions  created  by 
the  worship  of  an  Osiris  or  an  Attis?  Taking 
things  all  in  all,  the  mythicists  would  seem  to 
have  made  a  useful  suggestion  to  the  historians 
of  religion  by  their  hypothesis  of  the  worship  of 
the  Savior  among  certain  Jews. 

1. 1910,  17  pp. 


CONCLUSIONS  359 

The  school  of  history  of  reUgions  has  paid  homage 
to  the  reahsm  of  St.  Paul  in  the  theory  of  grace  and 
of  the  sacraments;  but  it  has  exaggerated  this 
realism,  and  confounded  it  with  magic.  St.  Paul 
changed  Christianity,  they  maintain.  As  for  Jesus, 
He  preached  penitence.  Such  preaching,  valuable 
for  salvation,  was  nothing  new  in  Israel.  What 
can  be  the  value  for  our  times  of  the  person  and 
doctrine  of  this  last  of  the  Jewish  prophets? 

This  depends  evidently  upon  what  is  thought  of 
His  preaching  in  regard  to  the  last  things.  The 
historians  of  religions  are  neighbors  here  of  the 
Eschatologists.  But  among  the  Eschatologists 
many  are  nearer  to  us  than  the  upholders  of  the 
comparative  method,  because  they  do  not  see  in 
St.  Paul,  any  more  than  in  the  synoptic  Gospels, 
any  element  derived  from  pagan  rehgions.  They 
hold  that  the  sacraments  may  have  been  instituted 
by  Christ  as  a  means  to  prepare  believers  before- 
hand for  a  participation  in  the  reign  of  God.  This 
notion  would  not  be  far  wrong  if  it  were  not  con- 
nected with  the  idea  that,  in  preparing  for  the  near 
advent  of  the  reign,  Jesus  was  enveloped  in  the 
common  error  of  His  time.  May  one  propose  to 
the  modern  intelligence  as  a  leader  one  who  would 
have  despaired  of  the  future  of  the  world? 

Mr.  Schweitzer,  the  type  of  the  consistent 
Eschatologists,  appears  to  be  a  man  endowed  with 
a  generous  soul  and  a  noble  character ;  he  does  not 
wish  to  give  up  Christ  altogether.  He  does  not 
expect  hght  from  Him.  He  dreams  of  a  religion 
independent  of  history,  and  of  every  figure  of 
history;  because  he  holds  that  the  greatest  genius 


360  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

can  dominate  only  the  conceptions  of  his  time; 
and  he  dreams  at  the  same  time  of  a  rehgion  inde- 
pendent of  every  metaphysical  adhesion,  of  a 
religion  in  which  the  man  who  believes  in  a  personal 
God  may  live  in  brotherly  communion  with  the 
man  who  does  not  distinguish  God  from  the  world. 
In  this  supreme  abstraction,  he  does  not  detach 
himself  from  Jesus,  because  he  holds  that  the  whole 
of  man  consists  in  a  will  which  is  high,  healthy, 
energetic;  and  that  the  soul  never  feels  itself  more 
exalted  and  more  pure  than  when  it  is  in  contact 
with  Jesus.  He  preserves  of  Christianity  not  the 
worship  of  Jesus,  but  the  mysticism  of  Jesus.  And 
he  speaks  with  such  fervor  that  we  like  to  imagine 
the  Master  saying  to  him  :  Thou  art  not  far  from 
the  reign  of  God  ! 

However  deformed  by  the  intemperance  of  Cul- 
ture, every  aspiration  towards  Jesus  is  good  for 
the  soul.  Yes,  one  who  proposes  to  consecrate 
his  strength  and  his  life  to  the  service  of  his  breth- 
ren, meaning  all  humanity,  will  draw  from  the 
example  of  the  Savior  a  secret  power,  and,  whatever 
he  may  say,  he  will  receive  hght  from  His  words; 
Jesus  came  to  bring  this  law  of  charity  to  the  world. 
But  charity  towards  men  was  for  Him  but  the  same 
thing  as  the  love  of  God.  The  salvation  He 
proposed  was  eternal  life  with  His  Father.  The 
Eschatologists  are  right  in  restoring  this  accent  to 
His  appeals,  in  recalHng  His  insistence  to  the  one 
thing  necessary  :  admission  into  the  kingdom. 
But  what  if  all  this  is  but  the  vision  of  one  deluded? 

The  Liberals  are  in  the  right  when  they  return 
thanks  to  Jesus  for  having  revealed  the  price  of  the 


CONCLUSIONS  361 

soul  and  a  religion  full  of  confidence  in  the  goodness 
of  the  Father,  and  for  having  announced  the  remis- 
sion of  sins.     But  is  salvation  for  them  a  reality  if 
they  do  not  beheve  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul? 
And  what  do  those  who  beheve  in  this  ask  of  the 
Savior?     If  He  is  not  God,  His  actions  have  no 
efficacy  for  others;  if   He  was   not   sent  by  God, 
the  Revealer  of  truth.  His  doctrine  is  necessarily 
restricted;  it  cannot  be  useful  to  our  generation. 
In  vain  is  His  genius  extolled.     It  is  very  well  to 
say  with  emotion  that  no  other  has  spoken  as  He 
has  of  the  soul,  of  the  neighbor,  and  of  God.     For 
our  pai't,  we  do  not  seek  elsewhere  for  the  words 
of  life.     But  after  all  the  question  is  whether  God 
calls  us  to  Him  and  if  His  designs  in  our  regard  are 
those  which  Jesus  has  made  known.     Now  the 
Liberals  cannot  even  decide  what  Jesus  thought 
of  Himself.     They  eliminate  the  Fourth  Gospel  in 
order  not  to  be  obliged  to  reject  as  coming  from 
Him  claims  which  they  judge  intolerable.     They 
have  not  yet  dealt  with  the  same  claims  in  the  form 
St.  Mark  gives  them;  they  have  apparently  not  yet 
taken  in  the  full  import  of  the  affirmations  of  the 
Second  Gospel.     Under  pressure  from  the  Escha- 
tologists,    they   now   make   more   room   in    their 
system  for    the  Messiahship    of  Jesus.     But  here 
arises  new  embarrassment.     Will  not  that  Son  of 
Man  who  announces  His  return  upon  the  clouds 
compromise  Himself  in  the  opinion  of  our  time? 
And  on  the  other  hand,  if  Jesus  did  not  say  that 
He  was  the  Messias,  what  word  reported  as  His  can 
be  reHed  on,  and  what  can  be  known  of  His  his- 
tory? 


362  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

Furthermore,  can  the  disciples  of  Holt zmann  and 
Harnack  share  in  the  worship  of  Jesus  without 
going  against  their  conscience?  And  if  they 
withdraw,  can  they  still  call  themselves  Christ- 
ians? Are  they  really  much  different  from  the 
rationalists  who  were  the  contemporaries  of  Les- 
sing?  In  the  fight  against  the  mythicists,  the 
Liberals  have  defended  the  historical  existence  of 
Jesus  as  the  very  foundation  of  religion.  And  the 
mythicists  might  have  said  to  them  :  "  What  can 
be  the  service  to  religious  souls  of  this  Jesus  to 
whom  you  have  refused  divinity?  Do  you  really 
hold  to  Him  so  strongly?  and  what  do  you  make  of 
Him?  You  cry  out  about '  scandal,  you  arouse 
religious  passions;  this  clamor  is  no  longer  in  season. 
Choose  between  the  preachers  and  the  University.  " 

Some  have  returned  to  the  meeting-house. 
Lutheran  orthodoxy  has  gained  recruits  during  this 
controversy,  and  more  will  be  gained.  The  Jesus 
of  Liberal  history  is  a  very  insignificant  figure 
alongside  of  the  Savior,  of  the  King  of  Kings,  of 
the  Incarnate  God  whom  the  churches  worship. 
Rather  than  yield  themselves  to  doubt,  many  will 
return  to  the  ancient  confessions  of  faith.  We 
would  like  to  hope  that  these  religious  souls  will  go 
as  far  as  the  Catholic  Church.  Lutherans  cannot 
ignore  the  absolute  condemnation  passed  by  criti- 
cism upon  Luther's  interpretation  of  St.  Paul. 
They  cannot  pretend  that,  to  pass  this  judgment, 
critics  arbitrarily  choose  texts,  eliminate  those 
which  do  not  tell  for  their  thesis,  allow  themselves 
to  be  borne  along  by  the  current  of  new  ideas.  No, 
criticism  takes  the  texts  as  they  are,   interprets 


CONCLUSIONS  363 

them  in  the  Hght  of  history,  and  this  method  forces 
it  to  give  to  the  words  the  old  meaning  they  had 
in  the  Cathohc  Chm'ch. 

German  exegesis  has,  then,  constructed  no 
system  which  is  not  already  destroyed,  shaking,  or 
battered  down  in  some  of  its  essential  facts.  It 
may  console  itself  with  the  thought  that  it  has  done 
all  this  work  alone,  both  construction  and  demoli- 
tion. Luther  set  the  world  on  fire  to  re-establish 
the  real  thought  of  St.  Paul  concerning  the  condi- 
tions of  salvation;  a  very  considerable  number,  I 
beUeve  that  it  is  to-day  the  great  majority,  of 
German  exegetes  see  that  he  was  mistaken.  — 
The  deists  explained  the  origin  of  Christianity  and 
of  the  inspired  books  by  means  of  an  audacious 
imposture  on  the  part  of  Jesus'  disciples.  This  ac- 
cusation had  hardly  been  formulated  when  honest 
science  blushed  for  it;  Lessing  did  not  dare  openly  to 
defend  Reimarus.  —  It  appeared  prudent  and  wise 
to  preserve  Christianity  divested  of  its  supernatural 
<jharacter,  reducing  the  Gospel  miracles  to  natural 
events.  —  Strauss  destroyed  this  system  of  the 
Rationalists,  but  had  no  success  in  replacing  it. 
For  the  .first  mythological  explanation  of  Christia- 
nity has  failed;  myths  made  on  the  pattern  of  Old 
Testament  happenings  and  predictions  are  mani- 
festly an  insufficient  explanation  of  the  new,  ardent 
and  conquering  faith  of  Christians.  —  The  school 
of  Tubingen  thought  to  find  the  starting-point  of  a 
fruitful  spiritual  activity  in  the  opposition  between 
the  principle  of  Jewish  legalism  and  Pauline  liberty 
of  spirit.  But  Albert  Ritschl  has  well  shown  that 
divergencies  on  secondary  points  presupposed  unity 


364  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

of  views,  the  source  of  which  remained  unrevealed 
by  Baur. 

These  old  systems  do  not  explain  the  meaning 
of  Christianity  nor  its  origin;  too  often  they  give 
a  wrong  meaning  to  the  texts,  and  their  interpreta- 
tions have  had  to  be  rectified. 

Have  more  recent  systems  succeeded  better? 
The  Liberals  have  been  able  to  spread  in  very 
extensive  circles  a  Life  of  Jesus  accepted  as  true  to 
history;  but  they  neglected  the  supernatural  which 
is  manifestly  contained  in  their  texts,  not  merely 
by  eliminating  passages  but  by  attenuating  the 
meaning  of  the  passages  they  retained;  the  Eschato- 
logists  have  made  this  clear.  —  Are  the  Eschato- 
logists  more  scrupulous  interpreters?  Not  always. 
The  Liberals  rightly  accuse  them  of  giving  a  wrong 
meaning  to  the  Parables.  No  one  has  proved  that 
the  Jewish  people  had  their  gaze  fixed  upon  the 
clouds  of  heaven  awaiting  the  advent  of  the  Son  of 
Man;  and  according  to  the  evidence  of  the  texts, 
they  were  ready  to  follow  a  temporal  Messias,  son 
of  David.  —  Historians  of  religions  do  not  attempt 
to  extract  from  the  words  of  the  New  Testament 
their  supernatural  content;  but  they  indulge  in 
exaggeratedly  realistic  expressions  on  the  subject 
of  infused  grace  and  of  the  sacraments ;  and  they  are 
led  astray  by  fanciful  comparisons.  —  As  for  the 
mythologists  of  the  last  hour,  it  must  be  said  to 
their  credit  that  they  are  not  scandaHzed  by  the 
plain  meaning  of  texts  which  teach  the  divinity  of 
Jesus.  They  recognize  that  from  the  earliest  days 
of  Christianity  He  was  worshipped  as  God.  But  in 
their  fanciful  assertion  that  His  divinity  and  the 


CONCLUSIONS  365 

worship  thereof  went  back  to  pre-Christian  days, 
they  have  consohdated  the  preachers  and  the  pro- 
fessors against  them.  They  are  hke  Ismael  :  "  He 
will  be  as  a  wild  ass;  his  hand  will  be  against  all, 
and  all  shall  raise  their  hand  against  him.  "  ^ 


III 

Causes  of  the  Failure  of  German  Exegesis. 


Can  it  be,  then,  that  we  are  to  see  the  end  of  the 
controversy  started  by  the  innovators  of  the 
XVI  century?  This  can  hardly  be  hoped  for,  to 
such  an  extent  has  this  variously  diluted  Christian- 
ity become  a  German  religion.  But  serious  minds 
will  find  food  for  thought  in  the  history  of  German 
exegesis ;  many  upright  souls  will  find  in  it  a  reason 
to  come  back  to  the  Cathohc  Church.  Will  not  the 
noble  English  nation  reahze  how  mediocre  is  this 
importation  from  Germany? 

Aheady  many  EngHshmen  have  recognized  that 
all  this  formidable  labor  has  failed  to  obtain  positive 
results.  Mr.  Headlam,  a  distinguished  scholar, 
collaborator  of  Mr.  Sanday  in  the  commentary  on 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  wrote,  last  year,  that 
the  work  of  Mr.  Schweitzer  entitled  "  From  Rei- 
marus  to  Wrede  "  has  convinced  most  people  both 
of  the  marvelous  intellectual  effort  and  of  the  com- 

1.  Gen.  XVI,  12. 


366  THE    MEANING   OF    CHRISTIANITY 

plete  lack  of  success  of  this  century  of  German 
erudition.  ^ 

Whence  this  failure?  Not  to  speak  of  the  prin- 
cipal cause,  which  is  the  revolt  against  the  teaching 
authority  of  the  Church,  I  believe  I  can  assign  two 
characteristic  causes. 

The  first  is  a  kind  of  doctrinal  opportunism.  The 
Church  we  have  seen,  is  not  shocked  by  the  super- 
natural in  Scripture.  Living  by  supernatural 
influence,  believing  in  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ, 
she  is  prepared  to  accept  the  statement  of  the  Gos- 
pels that  the  Son  of  God  made  man  worked  mir- 
acles, announced  future  events,  promised  to  send 
the  Holy  Ghost.  She  accepts  at  their  face  value 
texts  written  under  deep  conviction  of  the  reality 
of  the  supernatural.  And  furthermore,  these  texts 
being  the  word  of  God,  she  would  consider  it  a 
sacrilege  to  disregard  their  true  meaning. 

Once  Luther  entered  upon  the  scene.  Scripture 
became  an  arsenal  to  supply  proofs  for  anything 
that  had  to  be  established.  The  heresiarch  did  not 
recoil  from  the  supernatural,  but  he  understood  it  in 
his  own  way,  and  then  adapted  the  texts  to  his 
own  doctrine.     It  was  a  fatal  example ! 

At  the  end  of  the  XVIII  century,  reason  took 
Christianity  in  tow;  exegesis  again  had  to  be 
adapted  to  the  fashion  of  the  day.  This  oppor- 
tunism inspired  the  commentaries  of  the  Ration- 
alists; later,  regard  due  to  religious  sentiment 
led  in   a  contrary    direction,   to   the   concihation 


1.  English  Theology,  by  the  Rev.  A.  C.  Headlam,  D.  D. 
in  Theologisch  Tijdschrift,  1907,  p,  152. 


CONCLUSIONS  367 

theology.  The  radical  schools  are  naturally  freer, 
but  numerous  inconsistencies  show  their  care  not 
to  break  with  the  confessions  of  faith. 

All  we  ask  of  this  independent  criticism  is  that 
it  be  purely  scientific.  It  will  be  altogether  scien- 
tific only  when  it  will  have  divested  itself,  not 
merejy  of  opportunism,  but  also  of  a  second  fault 
common  to  all  the  schools  which  we  have  enume- 
rated, one-sidedness.  All  have  been  einseitig, 
looking  only  at  one  side  of  questions. 

This  adjective  is  not  altogether  synonymous 
with  systematic.  Assuredly  Germans  are  much 
given  to  building  systems,  and  systems  in  the  air. 
But  I  venture  to  say  that  if  the  English,  who  are 
very  practical,  have  little  taste  and  aptitude  for 
speculations,  we  are  past  masters  in  the  art  of 
systematic  construction.  It  is  a  heritage  that 
comes  to  us  from  scholasticism,  which  itself  inhe- 
rited from  Aristotle  and  Socrates  the  habit  of 
distinguishing  concepts,  of  defining  them  and  then 
arranging  them  in  a  fine  order.  I  insist  on  this 
harmony.  We  want  all  the  elements  to  agree,  all 
conclusions  to  show  themselves  legitimate  by  the 
good  accord  which  they  maintain  with  one  another ; 
we  are  satisfied  only  when  everything  within  is 
consistent  and  when  nothing  mars  outwardly  tlie 
purity  of  the  lines.  Sometimes  the  question  is 
one  of  tact  and  good  sense. 

Such  is  not  the  systematizing  of  the  Germans. 
They  are  one-sidedly  systematic.  They  discover 
an  idea,  cling  to  it,  give  it  free  rein,  unheedful  of 
difficulties  or  even  of  contradictions.  Every  thing 
is,  whether  or  no,  squeezed  into  the  system,  until 


368  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

it  crumbles.  All  the  explanations  attempted  by 
German  exegesis  sin  in  this  way.  Each  of  the 
leaders  takes  up  the  documents  as  if  no  one  before 
him  had  discovered  their  secret.  He  gets  hold  of 
certain  ideas  hitherto  neglected  by  others  (or  by 
himself),  and  attaches  to  them  decisive  impor- 
tance ;  all  is  subordinated  to  a  predominating 
notion.  This  method  has  its  seductiveness.  For 
I  realize  that  eclecticism  is  as  sterile  in  exegesis  as 
in  philosophy  One  could  not  discover  the  meaning 
of  Christianity  by  a  grouping  of  texts  if  he  did  not 
penetrate  to  the  raison  d'etre  of  the  whole.  Chris- 
tianity is  an  organism  whose  vital  principle  is  one. 
This  vital  principle,  long  since  discovered,  is  the 
incarnation  of  Jesus  Christ,  salvation  assured  to- 
men  by  the  grace  of  the  redemption.  To  leave  this 
aside  and  to  seek  for  any  other  principle,  was  to 
get  on  a  wrong  track.  But  there  are  many  wrong 
tracks.  The  Germans  erred,  to  speak  in  general 
terms,  in  becoming  absorbed  in  isolated  concepts, 
in  riveting  themselves  to  certain  texts,  in  being 
carried  away  by  certain  analogies.  The  genuine 
Latin  spirit  does  not  experience  less  difficulty 
than  does  the  German  spirit  in  subjecting  itself  to 
the  authority  of  tradition.  Latins,  too,  have  that 
human  inclination  to  follow  their  own  hghts,  which 
St.  Paul  could  call  the  flesh.  But  the  Latin  genius 
does  not  attempt  to  make  over  an  organism  with 
haphazard  means. 

At  the  risk  of  fatiguing  you  by  repetitions,   L 
shall  once  more  go  over  the  same  story. 

I  look  for  one-sided  {einseitig)  in  the  dictionary 
and  I  find  :  having,  or  considering  only  one  side; 


^  CONCLUSIONS  369 

hence,  incomplete;  narrow;  superficial;  systematic. 
German  exegesis  has  always  been  one-sided. 
Incomplete  the  exegesis  of  Luther,  who  was  hypno- 
tized by  some  texts  of  St.  Paul,  in  which  faith  is 
opposed  to  works,  and  could  not  perceive  that  this 
faith  is  the  adhesion  of  the  whole  soul  to  Christian- 
ity, and  that  justification  is  the  beginning  of 
sanctification. 

Narrow,  to  the  point  of  ineptness,  was  Reimarus 
when  he  charged  the  Apostles  with  imposture,  and 
represented  Christianity  as  issuing  from  a  fraud. 
Superficial  and  ridiculous  is  the  RationaHst 
explanation,  which  sees  only  the  natural  aspect  of 
a  history  over  which  rises  the  reign  of  God. 

Narrowly  systematic,  the  interpretation  imagined 
by  Strauss  who  transformed  the  miracles  of  a 
conquering  faith  into  myths  made  upon  an  ancient 
model. 

What  shall  we  say  of  Petrinism  and  Paulinism,  a 
veritable  tight-rope  over  which  Baur  could  pass 
only  by  keeping  his  eyes  fixed  upon  one  point? 

The  Liberals  have  appeared  more  disposed  to 
look  at  the  different  sides  of  Christianity,  but  they 
have  kept  of  Christianity  hardly  any  more  than  its 
moral  teaching,  and  that  transformed  for  the  use  of 
the  present  world. 

Eschatologism,  for  its  part,  proud  of  its  one- 
sidedness,  flatters  itself  that  it  has  found  that  one 
center  from  which  radiates  the  light  of  Christianity. 
It  would  be  right,  if  it  did  not  restrict  the  last 
things  to  one  sole  catastrophic  intervention  of  God, 
refusing  to  recognize  the  temporal  messianism  of 
the  Jews,  transforming  the  moral  teaching  of  Jesus 


370  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

into    a   provisory    system,    the    Parables   into    an 
announcement  of  the  end  of  the  world. 

Syncretism  notwithstanding  the  promise  of  its 
name,  is  a  narrow  concept.  The  historians  of 
religions  have  not,  however,  fallen  under  the  spell 
of  particular  texts  of  Scripture;  in  fact  it  is 
outside  of  the  Bible  that  they  have  gathered  the 
traits  of  a  mystery-religion.  And  while  they  seek 
for  the  analogies  which  Christianity  offers  with 
other  religions,  they  remain  blind  to  its  powerful 
originality.  No  amalgamation  of  paganism  and 
Jewish  messianism  could  produce  Christianity. 

The  reliance  which  the  mythicists  place  upon 
their  own  preconceived  notions,  rather  than  upon 
the  documents,  is  evident  and  they  do  not  even  try 
to  conceal  it. 

This  exegesis,  supported  by  grammars,  diction- 
aries, dissertations  of  all  kinds,  contains  an  enor- 
mous mass  of  very  useful  information ;  but  to  admire 
unreservedly  this  prodigious  intellectual  activity, 
I  should  require  that  it  be  less  intoxicated  by  its 
supposed  discoveries,  less  open  to  extravagant 
novelties  and  even  to  contradictory  notions,  less 
disposed  in  practice  to  a  certain  doctrinal  opportu- 
nism, and,  withal,  less  contemptuous  for  the  rest 
of  the  world. 

Its  faults  are,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  racial  or 
cultural  traits.  Lessing  remains  a  typical  case. 
He  was  hM  in  launching  a  new  system,  but  too 
prudent  to  uphold  it;  he  preserved  Christianity  in 
which  he  did  not  beheve;  he  was  keen  in  research, 
which  he  preferred  to  the  possession  of  the  truth. 
Truth  wishes  to  be  loved  for  its  own  sake. 


CONCLUSIONS  371 

Some  contemporary  German  exegetes  have^  gone 
much  further  than  Lessing.  They  are  the  ninety- 
three  intellectuals  who  signed  the  "  Appeal  to  the 
civilized  world.  "  They  accepted  as  scientific 
truth,  with  cheerful  insolence,  the  hes  which  the 
imperial  government  of  Germany  thought  fit  to 
spread  among  neutrals  to  dishonor  Belgium  after 
having  violated  her  neutrality.  Let  us  make  every 
allowance.  But  should  these  critics  have  been 
in  such  haste?  Should  they  not  have  taken  time  to 
read  other  documents  than  those  of  the  General 
Staff?  They  have  rejected  the  miracles  of  the 
Gospel,  on  the  ground  that  the  multitude  believes 
in  miracles  too  easily,  and  they  did  not  ask  them- 
selves if  the  German  troops  had  not  been  hypnotized 
by  the  suggestion  of  Belgian  franc-tireurs.  Really 
their  attitude  is  disheartening  for  those  who  have 
esteem  for  criticism.  How  credit  its  arduous 
researches  about  the  past,  that  book  sealed  with 
seven  seals,  when  it  has  fallen  into  such  gross^ 
delusions  concerning  the  present?  We  continue 
to  speak  in  accordance  with  the  most  favorable 
hypothesis !  Happily  the  Gospel  miracles  were 
attested  by  witnesses  who  had  the  truth  more  at 
heart. 

To  be  complete,  I  shall  here  mention  another 
characteristic  of  the  German  critics,  namely,  the 
settled  determination  not  to  believe  in  the  super- 
natural. In  accordance  with  this  determination 
each  decides  what  may  have  been  said  or  done  in 
such  or  such  circumstances,  what  is  authentic  and 
what  is  not.  Some  are  more  skilful  in  eliciting 
from  the  texts  the  meaning  they  waijt  to  find  in 


372  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

them,^  others  more  ingenious  in  getting  rid  of  what 
is  embarrassing.  But  this  is  a  general  feature  of 
unbeHeving  exegesis  upon  which  our  apologists 
have  sufficiently  dwelt.  Germany  set  the  pace, 
but  imitators  have  been  found  everywhere;  Dutch 
radicals,  others  perhaps,  have  even  surpassed 
them  in  arbitrariness.  German  subjectivism,  of 
which  so  much  has  been  said,  manifests  itself  more 
strikingly  in  efforts  at  restoration  than  in  brutal 
denial,  as  we  may  see  in  the  synthesis  of  Schleier- 
macher  and  of  Ritschl,  theologians  of  concihation 
and  compromise. 

But  these  attempts  at  organization  have  failed; 
German  exegesis  has  vainly  sought  for  the  meaning 
of  Christianity.  It  has  not  replaced  the  traditional 
meaning. 


IV 

Continuity  of     the     Church's    Teaching. 

Among  those  who  most  readily  agree  that  the 
German  exegetical  systems  concerning  the  origin 
and  meaning  of  Christianity  have  failed  to  replace 
the  system  of  the  Church,  there  may  be  some  who 
think  that  they  have  succeeded  in  their  negative 
task. 

To  answer  this  doubt  would  be  to  begin  another 
series  of  lectures.  However,  I  wish  to  say  a  few 
words  about  the  principal  difficulty,  that  which 
concerns  the  evolution  of  doctrines,  because  in  this 


CONCLUSIONS  373 

matter  there  is  a  certain  amount  of  apparent  una- 
nimity, among  our  adversaries. 

Exegesis  cannot  be  expected  to  furnish  proofs 
which  will  render  the  act  of  faith  necessary.     This 
act  is  always  free.     It  is  enough  that  the  exegete 
establish  the  continuity  of  primitive   dogma,  and 
guarantee  the  reahty  of  the  facts.     If  the  dogma 
that  the  Church  teaches  is  that  which  the  Apostles 
taught  and  which  was  manifested  to  them  in  the 
words  and  acts  of  Jesus,  interpreted  with  the  grace 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  are  placed  directly  in  presence 
of  the  Savior.     Now  this  continuity  has  been  ques- 
tioned at  three  points  :  between  Jesus  and  the 
Synoptic    Gospels,    between    the    Synoptics    and 
St.  Paul,  between  St.  Paul  ^nd  St.  John.     With 
the  Fourth  Gospel  we  are  in  full  CathoHcism,  or 
at  least  the  first  Fathers,  St.  Clement  of  Rome, 
St.   Ignatius,   St.  Justin,  lead   to   it  without   any 
gap.     But  between  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  St.  Paul 
there  is  said  to  be  an  impassable  crevice.     The 
Johannine  difficulty  really  consists  in  this.     Dif- 
ferences of  frame  as  compared  with  the  synoptics 
have  very  little  significance  alongside  the  pretended 
opposition  of  dogma  :  on  the  one  hand  the  reign  of 
God  which  is  to  be  inaugurated  by  a  catastrophic 
judgment,  on  the  other,  the  Spirit  already  given 
and  inaugurating  the  new  era.     Such  is,  if  I  am  not 
mistaken,  the  objection  of  the  Eschatologists.     But 
the  historians  of  religion,  whether  intentionally  or 
not,  have  given  to  this  objection  a  decisive  answer. 
The  Spirit  given  in  St.  John  is  given  already  in 
St.  Paul.     Professor  Bousset  has  told  us  how  fully 
and  in  how  stable  a  manner.     The  Spirit  in  St.  John 


374  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

uses  matter,  water  in  baptism,  bread  which  becomes 
the  flesh  of  Christ.  But  this  quahty,  at  the  same 
time  reahstic  and  spiritual,  of  the  sacraments  is 
likewise  in  St.  Paul.  St.  John  teaches  the  divinity 
of  Jesus,  but  St.  Paul  is  no  less  affirmative;  only  he 
has  not  to  place  this  affirmation  in  the  mouth  of 
the  Savior.  The  positive  fundamental  element  of 
doctrine  and  of  mysticism,  of  that  deep  mysticism 
which  grows  out  of  the  Incarnation,  is  then  identi- 
cal in  St.  Paul  and  in  St.  John.  It  matters  very 
little  that  St.  Paul  has  not  the  term  Word  or  Logos ; 
St.  John  himself  has  placed  it  in  his  prologue  only. 
Nevertheless,  the  atmosphere  does  seem  different ! 
Dreading  the  outbreak  of  Divine  wrath,  St.  Paul 
presses  on  towards  the  future  like  those  runners 
whose  body  is  bent  forward;  John  calmly  contem- 
plates the  work  of  salvation  accomplished  by  the 
Incarnate  Word.  True  !  But,  then,  the  Church 
never  held  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  contempo- 
rary with  the  Pauhne  Epistles.  Catholics  place  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  shortly  after  the  year 
50  and  the  Fourth  Gospel  shortly  befora  the  year 
100.  This  is  a  long  lapse  of  time  in  such  a  produc- 
tive period.  During  the  interval  threatening  clouds 
had  disappeared;  the  storm  had  broken  over  Jeru- 
salem. The  perspectives  £(re  more  clearly  drawn. 
But  the  doctrines  have  not  changed. 

The  connection  between  the  Synoptics  and 
St.  Paul  is  not  so  clear.  But  the  greater  number 
of  critics  place  the  four  great  Epistles  before  the 
redaction  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark.  The  contrasts 
in  this  case  cannot,  then,  be  explained  by  progress 
of  dogma,  nor  by  a  borrowing  from  foreign  elements. 


CONCLUSIONS 


375 


Here  we  have  the  historians  of  religion  against  us, 
since  they  make  of  St.  Paul  an  intermediary  through 
whom  pagan  dogma  came  into  the  Gospel;  but  the 
Eschatologists  maintain  the  substantial  identity 
of  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul  with  the  reproduction 
of  the  primitive  catechesis  in  the  Synoptics. 

The  purpose  is  different.  Converted  by  the 
revelation  of  the  Son  of  God,  of  the  risen  Christ, 
Paul  invites  the  Gentiles  to  die  to  sin  and  to  live  for 
God  by  participation  in  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  the  Son  of  God.  He  did  not  have  to  relate  the 
life  of  Jesus,  of  which  he  had  not  been  a  witness. 
The  Synoptists,  on  the  other  hand,  proposed  to 
relate  the  hfe  of  Jesus.  For  them,  too,  the  decisive 
matter  was  the  death  and  resurrection.  They 
invoked  with  the  same  faith  the  name  of  the  Lord. 
And,  nevertheless,  the  glory  of  the  Risen  Jesus  did 
not  change  the  physiognomy  of  the  lowly  preacher 
of  Galilee.  This  one  fact  is  a  guarantee  of  their 
honesty.  No  one  would  refuse  to  beheve  them  if 
they  did  not  relate  miracles.  But  if  these  miracles 
were  invented  to  justify  faith,  how  did  faith  itself 
arise?  Their  testimony  has  not  been  shaken  by 
criticism.  And  w^e  unhesitatingly  confirm  it  by 
the  authority  of  St.  John,  the  well-beloved  disciple. 
For  if  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  does  not  give 
us  a  transformed  doctrine,  if  in  regard  to  the  Spirit 
he  agrees  with  St.  Paul,  he'  is  not  irreconcilable 
v>ith  the  Synoptics  in  regard  to  the  facts  of  history, 
and  he  is  preeminently  the  witness  who  has  seen. 
That  he  proposed  to  make  the  Greeks  understand 
a  doctrine  of  Jewish  origin  is  not  an  absurd  hypo- 
,thesis  of  criticism.     But  did  he  need,  to  attain  this 


376  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

purpose,  to  invent  stories?  If  the  Fourth  Gospel 
was  what  so  many  have  claimed  it  is,  the  Gospel 
of  an  unknown  writer,  how  came  it  to  be  received 
in  the  Church,  notwithstanding  the  unexpected 
character  of  the  complement  of  the  Synoptic 
history  which  it  presents?  Criticism  has  not 
answered  this  question. 

All  has  not  been  vain  in  the  labor  of  German 
exegesis  —  helped,  if  you  like,  by  some  contradic- 
tors. We  see  more  clearly  than  formerly  that  to 
reject  Catholic  dogma  is  to  separate  oneself  from 
the  faith  of  the  first  Christians,  that  to  reject  the 
supernatural  is  to  refuse  to  believe  the  Apostles. 
And  this  testimony,  besides  assuring  us  that  Jesus 
worked  miracles,  confides  to  us  that  messianic  secret 
which  was  long  kept  by  the  Father,  which  Jesus' 
disciples  had  to  wrest  from  Him,  so  to  speak,  but 
which  was  finally  revealed  by  Him  openly  and 
clearly,  because  it  concerns  the  salvation  of  the 
world  to  know  who  He  is. 

Now  we  have  the  formidable  power  to  believe  or 
not  to  believe.  Choice  upon  which  depends  the 
salvation  of  each  man,  and  the  future  of  the  world  ! 

Of  those  who  should  be  tempted  to  profess  incre- 
dulity, I  would  ask  that  they  weigh  the  terms. 
If  they  think  that  Jesus  should  be  ehminated  from 
history,  there  is  nothing  to  say  to  them;  let  us 
leave  them  to  settle  accounts  with  common  sense. 
German  exegesis  admits  that  Jesus  existed,  about 
as  He  is  represented  by  our  first  two  Gospels. 
H  as  it  proved  that  H  e  was  only  a  man  ?  We  should 
have  to  know  first  what  kind  of  a  man.  A  sage, 
whose  moral  teaching  would  still  be  useful?     But 


CONCLUSIONS  377 

declare  the  greater  number  of  these  masters,  that 
man  never  existed.  Jesus  is  more  or  less  than  a 
sage.  He  called  Himself  the  ambassador  of  God, 
the  head  of  the  reign  of  God.  If  He  was  under  an 
illusion,  He  was  not  a  sage. 

We  are  often  asked  about  the  present  status  of 
the  criticism  of  the  Gospels?  What  are  we  to 
believe  about  their  authenticity?  That  is  thought 
to  be  the  whole  question.  We  have  said  that  our 
positions,  in  this  respect,  are  very  sohd;  but  this  is 
not  the  decisive  point.  This  point  is  that  no  criti- 
cism of  the  texts,  no  elimination  of  the  testimonies, 
no  declaration  against  the-  authenticity  of  the 
Gospels  or  the, Epistles  suffices  to  take  away  from 
the  figure  of  Jesus  its  supernatural  character.  If 
you  do  not  reject  absolutely  all,  hke  the  mythicists, 
if  you  retain  a  residuum,  however  little,  of  the 
historical  tradition  concerning  Jesus,  it  must  be 
admitted  that  He  held  and  manifested  claims  to  a 
supernatural  role  and  that  He  died  for  having 
done  so.  You  are  then  ever  brought  back,  after  so 
many  devious  windings,  by  German  exegesis  itself, 
into  the  presence  of  Jesus,  an  object  of  contradic- 
tion, and  you  have  to  resign  yourself  to  insult  Him 
if  you  are  not  decided  to  adore  Him. 

Mr.  Headlam,  whom  I  have  quoted  before,  has 
said  that  English  pubhc  opinion  cannot  be  satisfied 
with  a  purely  human  conception  of  the  hfe  of  Jesus 
Christ.  1  Mr.  Sanday  has  said  :  "  He  was  yet 
essentially  more  than  a  man.  "  ^ 


1.  L.  I.,  p.  153. 

2.  The  Life  of  Christ  in  recent  research,  p.  141,  Oxford,  1907; 
Cf.  Revue  biblique,  1908,  pp.  289  ff. 


378  THE    MEANING    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

J 

Then,  say  that ^  He  was  a  Man-God,  Hke  our 
councils  :  a  Divine  person  in  two  natures.  Any- 
thing else  would  be  mythology,  like  Arianism,  or 
disloyal  equivocation. 

It  is  easier  to  conceive  of  the  infinite  love  of  God 
which  makes  Him  come  down  to  us,  than  of  that 
great  angel  of  Arius,  a  son  of  God,  like  unto  God, 
and  nevertheless  a  creature.  Who  is  like  unto 
God?  And  how  could  the  sentiment  of  being 
specially  a  son  of  God,  whether  it  be  clearly  per- 
ceived or  enveloped  in  mists  of  the  sub-conscious- 
ness, make  Jesus  to  be  essentially  more  than  a 
man? 

There  are  men  who  refuse  to  distinguish  between 
God  and  man,  God  and  the  world,  and  who  regard 
religion  as  a  divinization  of  man,  who  comes  to  rule 
over  the  world  by  his  thought  and  free  activity. 
To  these  Jesus  is  nothing;  Strauss  or  other  Hegelians 
gained  little  in  making  of  Him  the  type  of  man 
become  God.  They  have  only  to  go  ahead,  towards 
an  indiscernible  good,  like  the  desperate  man  who 
went  on  swimming  on  the  high  sea,  though  knowing 
well  that  he  wouldnever  reach  the  shore. 

But  all  others  see  in  religion  a  bond  between  God 
and  us.  We  ask  Him  to  unite  us  to  Himself. 
To  this  union  Jesus  Christ  invites  us.  Christianity 
is  still,  as  for  St.  Paul,  an  energy,  a  power  of  God 
bringing  unto  salvation  every  one  that  believeth. 


liNDEX  OF  AUTHORS 


Aristophanes,  338. 

Bacon,  101. 

Bahn,  134  ff. 

Batiflol,  245,  256. 

Bauer,  205,  231,  233  ff.,  251, 

266,  354. 
Baur,  140,  159,  i9'i,  195  ff., 

230,  255,  369. 
Bedier,    177. 
Beyschlag,  257. 
Binder,  177. 
Boehme,    158. 
Bolland,  356. 
Boulanger,  105. 
Bossuet,  57. 

^ousset,  312  ff.,  358,  373. 
Bretschneider,    170. 
Brunetiftre,   25. 
Bruno,   94. 
Biilow,  86  f.,  90. 
Chateaubriand,    124,    253. 
Clemen,   323. 
Gondamin,  19  n. 
Comely,  256. 
Coulange  (Fuslel  de),  88. 
Croenert,   18. 
Cuq,  45. 
Darv'in,  168. 
Denifle,  58  ff.,  68  ff.,  78  f., 

81  f. 
Descartes,   101. 
Desmarais,  104. 
Denk,  93. 
Dhorme,  19  n. 
Dieterich,  338. 
Dollinger,  92. 


Drews,  355  ff. 

Duhem,  130  f. 

Dupuis,  348,  352. 

Durkheim,   130  f. 

Eliot    (George.    Mary    Ann 

Evans),  162,  171.  173. 
Epictetus,   226. 
Epicurus,  228. 
Erasmus,  82.  ^ 

Euripides,  227,  338. 
FJcker,  72,  76. 
Fielding,  99. 
Fillion,  8  f.,  348,  355. 
Firmicus  Maternus.  311  f. 
Fischer,    240. 
Frank,  93. 
Fuhrmann,  352. 
Gehrhardt,  95. 
Gesenius,  17. 
Giesler,  247. 
Giraud,114. 
Goetze,  121. 
Grimm,  177. 
Grisar,  69. 
Guyau,  357. 
Guyon,  100. 
Harnack,  24,  60  f.,  80,  91, 

181,    240,    242,    254,    256, 

258,  262,  268,  362. 
Hartmann,  357. 
Hase,  149  ff. 
Hausrath,  164. 
Headlam,  365  f.,  377. 
Hegel,  89,  93,  140,  159,  162, 

168,  191,  240. 
Heine,  106. 


380 


INDEX   OF  AUTHORS 


Heinrich,    59   f.,    83   f.,    95, 

113,  123  f.,  192. 
Heitmuller,  322,  337. 
Helvidius,   104. 
Herbert  of  Cherbury,  101. 
Hengstenberg,  231  f.,  235. 
Herder,  123  f. 
Hess.  129  n. 
Holbach,  103. 
Holsten,  315. 
Holtzmann,     242,    257     ff., 

362. 
Hoonacker,  19  n. 
Hutten,  166. 
Jacobi,  129  n. 
Jacquier,  256. 
Jaussen,  19  n. 
Jensen,  18,  352,  356,  358. 
Josephus,  236,  297  f. 
Jtilicher,  256. 
Jundt,  68  f. 
Juvenal,  225. 
Kant,    89    f.,    126,    141    fl., 

153. 
Kautzsch,  17. 
Keim,  257. 
Klopstock,  123. 
Koerner,  158. 
Kroll,  317. 
Kuinol,    171. 
Lagrange,    19    n.,    58,    120, 

186,  205,  211,  226,  284  f., 

289,  298,  304,  306,  330. 
Lake,  337. 
Lamenais,   159. 
Lamond,  69. 
Lefevre  d' staples,  82. 
Leibnitz,  126. 
Lessing,    90,    106    ff.,    143, 

362  f. 
Levesque,    247. 
Levy,   112,   158   f.,   162   ff., 

265. 
Lichtenberger,      152,      154, 

231  f.,  238  f. 


Littre,  170,  178  f.,  191. 
Loisy,    14,    168,    192,    268, 

299,  310. 
Loman,  205. 
Lubinski,  356. 
Luther,  33  f.,  54  ff.,  93,  95, 

97,  133,  204,  231,  313  f., 

322,  362  f.,  366,  369. 
Magny,  98  f. 
Manen,  215. 
Marklin,  159  ff. 
Masson,  99  f.,  105. 
Merx,  262. 
Michaelis,  56. 
Naber,  205. 

Nieniojewski,  352,  356. 
Opitz,  129. 
Osiander,  97. 
Ovid,   227. 
Ozanam,  85  f. 
Paquier,  58. 
Pascal,  113,  121. 
Passaw,  18. 
Paulus,    127,    139    ff.,    169, 

171,  175,  183,  194. 
Pauly,    16. 
Perrot,  17. 
Philo,  225  f.,  236. 
Pierson,  205. 
Plato,  226,  236. 
Plutarch,  338,  345. 
Podechard,  19  n. 
Quinei,  193. 
Rapp,  161,  163  f. 
Reimarus,  106,  110  ff.,  166, 

173,  314,  363,  369. 
Reinhard,  128  ff. 
Reitzenstein,  337. 
Renan,    14,    92,    114,    159, 

163,  166  f.,  189,  264  f. 
Robertson,  353  f. 
Roscher,  16. 

Rousseau,  100,  103  f.,  113. 
Sabatier,  152. 
Saglio,  17. 


INDEX    OF    AUTHORS 


381 


Sallet,  192  f. 

Sanday,  265,  377. 

SaundefR,  24. 

Schelling,  159,  358. 

Schenkel,  240  ff.,  264. 

Schiller,  11,  123. 

Schleiermacher,  128,  143, 
149  ff.,  159,  169  f.,  238  f., 
243,246,372. 

Schmiedel,  353. 

Schweitzer,  7  f.,  97,  112, 118, 
122,  124,  129  ff.,  137  ff., 
149  ff.,  155,  157,  162  f., 
203,  232,  237,  242,  268, 
271  ff.,  287,  298,  303, 
308  f.,  336,  352,  359  f., 
365. 

Scholten,  264. 

Schwartz,  255. 

Seeley,  354. 

Seneca,  223,  228,  236. 

Smith  (W.  B.),  351  ff. 

Smith  (W.  R.),  337  f. 

Socinus,  94. 

Spinosa,  140,  152. 

Spitta,  255. 

Stael,  56  f.,  84  f. 

Steck,  205. 

Steudel,  358. 

Strauss,  33,  112,  119,  140  f., 
149,    156,    157     ff.,     209, 


231  f.,  243  f.,  246  f.,  251, 

255,  348  f.,  354,  369,  378. 
Tennhard,  98. 
Teubner,   16. 
Tillmann,263. 

Venturini,  137  ff.,  171,  183. 
Vigouroux,  93  f.,  101,  112, 

143  f.,  193. 
Vincent,    19  n. 
Vischer,  159,  165,  167. 
Volney,    348. 
Voltaire,   103   ff.,   106,   108, 

113  f.,  123,  166,  230. 
Weinel,  337. 
Weiss  (B).,  257,  268. 
Weiss  (J).,  267  ff.,  300,  302, 

308. 
Weisse,  249. 
Weizsacker,    257. 
Wellhansen,  255,  262  f. 
Wendt,    255. 
Whittaker,  356. 
Wieland,  106. 
Windisrh,  311. 
Wissowa,  16. 
Wolff,  126,  140. 
Wrede,  18,  265  ff.,  306,  351. 
Zahn,  238. 
Zimmermann,    159. 
>immern,    353. 


Printed  by  I'Imprini.  de  Wontligeon.  La  Chapelle-Montligeon  (France). 
/    -  9134-5-20. 


Date  Due 

,^0  28 

42 

1 

^■hcm  TV 

•t»™r- 

^- 

A^:-   :      x^ 

f> 

